Sunday, March 07, 2004
Trippi documentary
The look back at the Dean campaign through the eyes of Joe Trippi on CNN Presents tonight was funny, exciting and, ultimately quite moving. It will be rebroadcast at 11 pm tonight, in case you missed it.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
The Blackmun Papers
From one of Linda Greenhouse's masterful articles on the Blackmun papers released this week:
"In the summer of 1993, a law clerk suggested that the time had come to declare publicly an 'abolitionist position.' In a memo that traced Justice Blackmun's evolution on the issue, the clerk, Andrew Schapiro, wrote: 'Efforts to fine-tune the machinery of death cannot succeed.'
With Justice Blackmun's authorization, his clerks took on the project, not yet aware that it would be his last term. They were looking for a suitable case, a death-sentence appeal that a majority would predictably vote to deny. Justice Blackmun would file the statement as a dissenting opinion.
After a search of several months, the case the clerks selected was an appeal from a Texas inmate, Bruce E. Callins, sentenced to death for killing a man in a bar. Its very ordinariness commended it.
Adopting his law clerks' language, Justice Blackmun delivered his denunciation of the death penalty: Efforts to administer the death penalty fairly and consistently were 'doomed to failure,' as the court would realize some day, he said, adding: 'I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive.'
After the opinion was released on Feb. 21, 1994, a frail Justice Brennan, the passionate death penalty opponent who had retired four years earlier, called to thank Justice Blackmun for 'the present.'
A letter arrived several months later, painstakingly printed on lined yellow paper. 'Dear Sir: I felt such a overpowering need to write you & thank you for reaching the decision you did on my case,' Mr. Callins began. 'I cannot imagine what you must have went through in reaching such a major decision.' He said he hoped that Justice Blackmun was 'at peace within yourself for doing as you did.'
Mr. Callins was executed by lethal injection three years later. His sister, Nadeline Robinson, wrote to inform Justice Blackmun. "He had mentioned your name to me with great respect for you as an individual," she said.
"In the summer of 1993, a law clerk suggested that the time had come to declare publicly an 'abolitionist position.' In a memo that traced Justice Blackmun's evolution on the issue, the clerk, Andrew Schapiro, wrote: 'Efforts to fine-tune the machinery of death cannot succeed.'
With Justice Blackmun's authorization, his clerks took on the project, not yet aware that it would be his last term. They were looking for a suitable case, a death-sentence appeal that a majority would predictably vote to deny. Justice Blackmun would file the statement as a dissenting opinion.
After a search of several months, the case the clerks selected was an appeal from a Texas inmate, Bruce E. Callins, sentenced to death for killing a man in a bar. Its very ordinariness commended it.
Adopting his law clerks' language, Justice Blackmun delivered his denunciation of the death penalty: Efforts to administer the death penalty fairly and consistently were 'doomed to failure,' as the court would realize some day, he said, adding: 'I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive.'
After the opinion was released on Feb. 21, 1994, a frail Justice Brennan, the passionate death penalty opponent who had retired four years earlier, called to thank Justice Blackmun for 'the present.'
A letter arrived several months later, painstakingly printed on lined yellow paper. 'Dear Sir: I felt such a overpowering need to write you & thank you for reaching the decision you did on my case,' Mr. Callins began. 'I cannot imagine what you must have went through in reaching such a major decision.' He said he hoped that Justice Blackmun was 'at peace within yourself for doing as you did.'
Mr. Callins was executed by lethal injection three years later. His sister, Nadeline Robinson, wrote to inform Justice Blackmun. "He had mentioned your name to me with great respect for you as an individual," she said.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Birds of a feather
There was more than one vulture in the news this week. MBNA, the Bush campaign's top corporate contributor and America's top usurer, issued its new 9/11 card this week only to quickly drop it after bitter complaints.
The Bush administration would have spoken out, but it was too busy doing the same thing. And trying to pass the bankruptcy bill.
The Bush administration would have spoken out, but it was too busy doing the same thing. And trying to pass the bankruptcy bill.
VH-1 gem
From their brilliant, decadent and deeply moving special, When Disco Ruled The World:
"Who wanted to listen to Ethel Merman's disco album? No one!"
"Who wanted to listen to Ethel Merman's disco album? No one!"
Evangelical values at work
A most passionate opinion piece
The Washington Post has just published Charles Krauthammer's first intelligent piece in years. Almost by definition, it couldn't have much to do with international relations or politics, topics the one time physician knows little about. And it doesn't.
It is, however, a splendid denunciation of Mel Gibson's film that invokes everything from Vatican II to Leni Riefenstahl (recently remembered so lovingly at the Oscars alongside Elia Kazan), and well worth reading.
It is, however, a splendid denunciation of Mel Gibson's film that invokes everything from Vatican II to Leni Riefenstahl (recently remembered so lovingly at the Oscars alongside Elia Kazan), and well worth reading.
Krugman on starving the beast
Paul Krugman once again performs a service to the nation, doing what journalists can't due to their own cowardice or ignorance. Most likely both.
Paul Wellstone and John Kerry on DOMA
Here are the late Senator Paul Wellstone's reflections on his 1996 vote for the Defense of Marriage Act.
When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Matthew Shepard, I though to myself, "Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?" Of course, I had never believed this when I voted for [Defense of Marriage Act, an effort to prohibit same-sex marriage.] But if you deny people who are in a stable, loving relationship the right to marry, do you deny them their humanity? I still wonder if I did the right thing.
David Corn, in his excellent piece in The Nation, remembers Kerry's actions on the Senate floor:
Investigations were not the only notable moments in Kerry's Senate career. On September 10, 1996, as he was in a tight re-election contest against William Weld, the popular Republican governor of Massachusetts, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny federal benefits to same-sex couples and permit states to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. He was one of only fourteen senators to oppose the measure. Several leading Senate liberals--including Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy--had voted for it. But on the floor of the Senate that day, Kerry, who noted that he did not support same-sex marriage, said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political." He refused to pretend that the bill was not a wedge-issue trap devised by conservative Republicans. The legislation, he charged, was "meant to divide Americans," and he argued fiercely that it was unconstitutional. "If this were truly a defense of marriage act," he said, "it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for all troubled marriages, not just for those who can afford it. It would provide treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse.... It would guarantee daycare for every family that struggles and needs it."
When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Matthew Shepard, I though to myself, "Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?" Of course, I had never believed this when I voted for [Defense of Marriage Act, an effort to prohibit same-sex marriage.] But if you deny people who are in a stable, loving relationship the right to marry, do you deny them their humanity? I still wonder if I did the right thing.
David Corn, in his excellent piece in The Nation, remembers Kerry's actions on the Senate floor:
Investigations were not the only notable moments in Kerry's Senate career. On September 10, 1996, as he was in a tight re-election contest against William Weld, the popular Republican governor of Massachusetts, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny federal benefits to same-sex couples and permit states to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. He was one of only fourteen senators to oppose the measure. Several leading Senate liberals--including Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy--had voted for it. But on the floor of the Senate that day, Kerry, who noted that he did not support same-sex marriage, said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political." He refused to pretend that the bill was not a wedge-issue trap devised by conservative Republicans. The legislation, he charged, was "meant to divide Americans," and he argued fiercely that it was unconstitutional. "If this were truly a defense of marriage act," he said, "it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for all troubled marriages, not just for those who can afford it. It would provide treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse.... It would guarantee daycare for every family that struggles and needs it."
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Bush and Univision
Last night Bush spent the evening at the home of one of the most powerful people in American broadcasting, and almost no one seems to have noticed.
After the Shrine fundraiser, Bush spoke to a $25,000-a-person dinner that raised $3.5 million for Republican National Committee dinner at the home of A. Jerrold Perenchio, a billionaire sports promoter who was the beneficiary last year of a controversial merger decision by the administration.
Perenchio is chairman and chief executive of the Spanish-language media giant Univision, and the Justice Department and then the Federal Communications Commission approved a merger with Hispanic Broadcasting Corp. that public interest groups and many Democrats said would give Anglo executives a near-monopoly over the Spanish-language media.
Maybe we ought to be paying close attention to Univision's political coverage for the next few months.
After the Shrine fundraiser, Bush spoke to a $25,000-a-person dinner that raised $3.5 million for Republican National Committee dinner at the home of A. Jerrold Perenchio, a billionaire sports promoter who was the beneficiary last year of a controversial merger decision by the administration.
Perenchio is chairman and chief executive of the Spanish-language media giant Univision, and the Justice Department and then the Federal Communications Commission approved a merger with Hispanic Broadcasting Corp. that public interest groups and many Democrats said would give Anglo executives a near-monopoly over the Spanish-language media.
Maybe we ought to be paying close attention to Univision's political coverage for the next few months.
Civil rights purists, the Supreme Court and the 2004 election, Part II
Read Part One here.
Two third of Americans oppose gay marriage, but only about half oppose Bush’s “Not for homos” amendment. What this means in practice is that gay marriage will not come through legislation and our political system. The political process in Massachusetts, that bluest of blue states, ought to provide plenty of evidence of that. Recent polling is beginning to suggest the amendment against marriage will pass with or without language on civil unions. Kerry’s support of the inclusion of civil unions in Massachusetts has pushed debate far to the left of what it was before, when the Democratic Speaker in the Massachusetts House refused to even consider them in such an amendment.
The current political atmosphere provides plenty of evidence to suggest the possibility of civil unions in extremely blue states: California, Vermont and New Jersey, where they already exist or soon will, and the few others that have strong Democratic majorities in the legislature and Democratic governors. And that’s it. Don’t expect them anywhere else. Do, on the other hand, expect plenty of anti-marriage and anti-civil unions legislation in red states.
And don’t ever expect a civil union to have validity in a state that does not recognize them. It is not going to happen because the federalization of civil unions will never get through Congress, even if we control the Presidency and have slim majorities in both Houses.
Five reliably centrist votes on the Supreme Court will not bring gay marriage either. But it will brand employment discrimination unconstitutional (probably by a 7-2 margin since Scalia and Thomas would be alone on that one). I believe five votes would be sufficient to force civil unions on every state in the nation, and to make them recognize each others’ civil unions. Again, this cannot come through the political process under present circumstances.
I believe that the last month though polarizing for now may well be seen as a watershed moment. Ordinary gay couples, by simply getting married and declaring their love for one another so publicly, have put a face on an issue that used to be very abstract. For now, however, in most parts of the country, that face is seen as perverse and bizarre if not just plain wrong. The political reality is that legislatively it cannot until at least majorities of individual states clearly supports it. And there isn’t a single state in the country where they do. There is polling evidence, however, of an enormous generational divide on the issue. This is a war of attrition; demographically speaking, time is on the side of marriage proponents. Gay marriage is coming.
Pew’s recent poll on this matter suggests that 28% of those who favor gay marriage would never vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on the issue, as opposed to 65% of those who oppose it. That idealistic and passionate 28% would do well to remember that there are plenty of gay Americans in red states (and most blue ones) who lack a host of civil rights protections that a progressive Supreme Court alone can provide. The Court is unlikely to go so far as to create gay marriage only to have a constitutional amendment overturn it. But the political realities are such that it will find itself able to go much farther than most Americans are willing to go. The Court rarely goes against a 99% majority of the population when an issue is this significant, but it often discovers the courage of its convictions against a 60% majority. And I believe that by 2009, under a Kerry presidency, there could be clear majorities to empower gay Americans with everything except marriage, including universally recognized civil unions.
If George W. Bush is elected President, by the end of his term the opposite would occur: four young, reliable votes to the right of Bush himself, including a new Chief Justice. That would be reason enough to vote for John Kerry for President.
But finally, this election isn’t just about gay marriage. Those whose sympathies lie with the Democratic Party because of its support for civil rights and the poor believe that this election is about the destruction of almost everything decent and worthy about our public life. The current Supreme Court has systematically sliced away at ordinary Americans’ rights in cases involving disabilities, equal employment opportunity, sexual harassment, prisoners’ rights (did you know that if felons had been given the right to vote the Senate would have been Democratic since 1986? Five justices could give them back that right). Affirmative action, meanwhile, remains constitutional because of one justice’s vote. Expect it to be unconstitutional by 2009 if Bush is elected. These are all subjects that Andrew Sullivan and Log Cabin Republicans (and, sadly, too many Nader voters) have never given a rat’s ass about. Decent Americans, however, should.
We were very, very lucky not to have a Supreme Court vacancy in the Bush Administration. To my knowledge, there has never been an eight-year stretch without one. The Supreme Court will make a historic shift by 2008, in one direction or another. Ralph Nader’s disingenuous and opportunistic support of gay marriage should be no one’s excuse to destroy the aspirations of every other oppressed group in the country—including their own.
Two third of Americans oppose gay marriage, but only about half oppose Bush’s “Not for homos” amendment. What this means in practice is that gay marriage will not come through legislation and our political system. The political process in Massachusetts, that bluest of blue states, ought to provide plenty of evidence of that. Recent polling is beginning to suggest the amendment against marriage will pass with or without language on civil unions. Kerry’s support of the inclusion of civil unions in Massachusetts has pushed debate far to the left of what it was before, when the Democratic Speaker in the Massachusetts House refused to even consider them in such an amendment.
The current political atmosphere provides plenty of evidence to suggest the possibility of civil unions in extremely blue states: California, Vermont and New Jersey, where they already exist or soon will, and the few others that have strong Democratic majorities in the legislature and Democratic governors. And that’s it. Don’t expect them anywhere else. Do, on the other hand, expect plenty of anti-marriage and anti-civil unions legislation in red states.
And don’t ever expect a civil union to have validity in a state that does not recognize them. It is not going to happen because the federalization of civil unions will never get through Congress, even if we control the Presidency and have slim majorities in both Houses.
Five reliably centrist votes on the Supreme Court will not bring gay marriage either. But it will brand employment discrimination unconstitutional (probably by a 7-2 margin since Scalia and Thomas would be alone on that one). I believe five votes would be sufficient to force civil unions on every state in the nation, and to make them recognize each others’ civil unions. Again, this cannot come through the political process under present circumstances.
I believe that the last month though polarizing for now may well be seen as a watershed moment. Ordinary gay couples, by simply getting married and declaring their love for one another so publicly, have put a face on an issue that used to be very abstract. For now, however, in most parts of the country, that face is seen as perverse and bizarre if not just plain wrong. The political reality is that legislatively it cannot until at least majorities of individual states clearly supports it. And there isn’t a single state in the country where they do. There is polling evidence, however, of an enormous generational divide on the issue. This is a war of attrition; demographically speaking, time is on the side of marriage proponents. Gay marriage is coming.
Pew’s recent poll on this matter suggests that 28% of those who favor gay marriage would never vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on the issue, as opposed to 65% of those who oppose it. That idealistic and passionate 28% would do well to remember that there are plenty of gay Americans in red states (and most blue ones) who lack a host of civil rights protections that a progressive Supreme Court alone can provide. The Court is unlikely to go so far as to create gay marriage only to have a constitutional amendment overturn it. But the political realities are such that it will find itself able to go much farther than most Americans are willing to go. The Court rarely goes against a 99% majority of the population when an issue is this significant, but it often discovers the courage of its convictions against a 60% majority. And I believe that by 2009, under a Kerry presidency, there could be clear majorities to empower gay Americans with everything except marriage, including universally recognized civil unions.
If George W. Bush is elected President, by the end of his term the opposite would occur: four young, reliable votes to the right of Bush himself, including a new Chief Justice. That would be reason enough to vote for John Kerry for President.
But finally, this election isn’t just about gay marriage. Those whose sympathies lie with the Democratic Party because of its support for civil rights and the poor believe that this election is about the destruction of almost everything decent and worthy about our public life. The current Supreme Court has systematically sliced away at ordinary Americans’ rights in cases involving disabilities, equal employment opportunity, sexual harassment, prisoners’ rights (did you know that if felons had been given the right to vote the Senate would have been Democratic since 1986? Five justices could give them back that right). Affirmative action, meanwhile, remains constitutional because of one justice’s vote. Expect it to be unconstitutional by 2009 if Bush is elected. These are all subjects that Andrew Sullivan and Log Cabin Republicans (and, sadly, too many Nader voters) have never given a rat’s ass about. Decent Americans, however, should.
We were very, very lucky not to have a Supreme Court vacancy in the Bush Administration. To my knowledge, there has never been an eight-year stretch without one. The Supreme Court will make a historic shift by 2008, in one direction or another. Ralph Nader’s disingenuous and opportunistic support of gay marriage should be no one’s excuse to destroy the aspirations of every other oppressed group in the country—including their own.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
How the mighty have fallen
What is Billy Dee Williams doing on That '70s Show?
There's no reason to expect another "Success is nothing without someone to share it with," particularly when it's delivered to Diana Ross. You only get a line that classic and campy once in a lifetime. But for what it's worth, you can get your autographed Lando Calrissian action figures here.
There's no reason to expect another "Success is nothing without someone to share it with," particularly when it's delivered to Diana Ross. You only get a line that classic and campy once in a lifetime. But for what it's worth, you can get your autographed Lando Calrissian action figures here.
A picture tells a thousand words
Courtesy of Atrios, this comes from today's Los Angeles Times:
I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
I answer, "No."
She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the Jews."
Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.
Anna Paikow
I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
I answer, "No."
She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the Jews."
Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.
Anna Paikow
John Edwards hits it out of the park
Anyone who watched this speech knows it was a home run. His unequivocal support of John Kerry, his enthusiasm, his likeability, a stirring defense of his campaign and the best performance of a child in American politics since 1963 made this the closing argument of a lifetime.
Will he win the case? We won't know till July. But it was the best concession speech I have ever seen, better even than Weld in 1996, and far more inspiring.
Will he win the case? We won't know till July. But it was the best concession speech I have ever seen, better even than Weld in 1996, and far more inspiring.
Big Friday in the blogosphere
That's because the American Research Group will be releasing poll results of Bush-Kerry-Nader in Florida. They could confirm this week's Florida Sun-Sentinel poll showing a five point Bush lead (47-42-1) or suggest that they are closer. Or it may show that Nader, fraud (with the assistance, this time, of Diebold) and renewed suppression of the black vote could once again tip the state in Bush's direction.
Florida polling results will matter a great deal in terms of all three candidates' electoral strategy and Kerry's VP choice, so keep your eyes peeled.
Florida polling results will matter a great deal in terms of all three candidates' electoral strategy and Kerry's VP choice, so keep your eyes peeled.
Suggest a job for this great American
Al Gore did two things very right in his political career. The first was to pick the O'Jays' "Love Train" as his campaign theme song in 2000. The second was to ask Congressman John Lewis to give a nominating speech on his behalf at the Democratic National Convention in 1992.
John Lewis is one of the greatest human beings in American politics. He is a man of such moral authority that many conservative Republican voters are forced to accept Lewis as a man of faith and principle despite his Gospel-rooted politics.
In the unlikely (but not impossible) event that Democrats regain their majority there in 2004, he would probably be Democratic whip; his positions on the Budget and Ways and Means committees would give him enormous power and influence for good.
But what if the House remains in the lawbreakinghands of an exterminator? It may be that Lewis, already part of the House Democratic leaderhship, may wish to remain there and fight the good fight. I can only imagine what a morale booster his gentle yet tremendously dynamic presence must be for his colleagues.
Under those circumstances, however, the country might be far better served by giving him a greater forum. So the question for JUSIPER readers is this: what position, Cabinet level or otherwise, should President John F. Kerry nominate Lewis to?
John Lewis is one of the greatest human beings in American politics. He is a man of such moral authority that many conservative Republican voters are forced to accept Lewis as a man of faith and principle despite his Gospel-rooted politics.
In the unlikely (but not impossible) event that Democrats regain their majority there in 2004, he would probably be Democratic whip; his positions on the Budget and Ways and Means committees would give him enormous power and influence for good.
But what if the House remains in the lawbreakinghands of an exterminator? It may be that Lewis, already part of the House Democratic leaderhship, may wish to remain there and fight the good fight. I can only imagine what a morale booster his gentle yet tremendously dynamic presence must be for his colleagues.
Under those circumstances, however, the country might be far better served by giving him a greater forum. So the question for JUSIPER readers is this: what position, Cabinet level or otherwise, should President John F. Kerry nominate Lewis to?
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Vermont's classy move
Thanks to the people of Vermont for providing a final grace note this primary season. Following week after week of a national media piling on and calling their former governor a kook, Vermonters stood up and recognized him, at the very least, for what he was: a damn good governor they saw fit to reelect four times.
John Kerry (D) versus George W. Bush (R)
Kerry's crushing and in some ways unexpectedly broadbased victory over John Edwards in Ohio ends the primary season, whatever ultimately happens in Georgia tonight.
It really was the flag
CNN's exit polling confirms that Kerry won handily among those who came to the Georgia primary primarily to vote for President. Among the third of the electorate that came primarily to vote on the flag, Edwards won by twenty points.
Monday, March 01, 2004
John Edwards, the Georgia primary and the Confederate flag
Insider Advantage has Kerry 46 Edwards 25 and expects, ultimately, a 57-38 outcome in the Georgia primary. Zogby mirrors those results with 46-27. Survey USA, on the other hand, says the race is a statistical dead heat: 46-42 Kerry.
So, basically, three polls have Kerry at 46%. The level and intensity of Edwards' support, however, remain unclear.
One wildcard is the referendum on the state flag and whether it will bring independents and Republicans to the polls in significant numbers. If enough "Southern heritage Republicans," as sheetwearing Christians and their sympathizers are known in Georgia, show up and vote for Edwards, the argument goes, he could win.
My understanding, however, is that not too many of them are likely to turn up. The 2002 Ralph Reed/Sonny Perdue/Saxby Chambliss campaign was not primarily about draft dodgers impugning a triple amputee's patriotism. It was about raising turnout among the Georgia Republican Party's base with a simple promise: restoration of the Confederate symbol (which didn't appear until 1956 in response to Brown v Board of Education) to the state flag.
But it turns out that Sonny Perdue reneged on his promise. First, rather than changing the flag through the legislative process, he opted for a referendum. Worst of all, the old flag isn't even one of the options!
Edwards, much like John McCain before him, has shown little evidence of winning primaries in which only members of his own party can vote. He has done better in states like Wisconsin and South Carolina, which allow Republicans and independents into the process. He has gone out of his way to talk about race at every single campaign stop and the particular responsibility he feels towards the issue as a product of the South.
The very image of the positive New South, the senior senator from North Carolina represents everything that Southern heritage Republicans detest. Most of those who turn out will vote in the Republican primary for George W. Bush, a candidate who has represented their interests and agenda better than any president since Buchanan. Some, however, will request a Democratic ballot. How ironic it would be if John Edwards won his greatest victory riding their Confederate coattails.
So, basically, three polls have Kerry at 46%. The level and intensity of Edwards' support, however, remain unclear.
One wildcard is the referendum on the state flag and whether it will bring independents and Republicans to the polls in significant numbers. If enough "Southern heritage Republicans," as sheetwearing Christians and their sympathizers are known in Georgia, show up and vote for Edwards, the argument goes, he could win.
My understanding, however, is that not too many of them are likely to turn up. The 2002 Ralph Reed/Sonny Perdue/Saxby Chambliss campaign was not primarily about draft dodgers impugning a triple amputee's patriotism. It was about raising turnout among the Georgia Republican Party's base with a simple promise: restoration of the Confederate symbol (which didn't appear until 1956 in response to Brown v Board of Education) to the state flag.
But it turns out that Sonny Perdue reneged on his promise. First, rather than changing the flag through the legislative process, he opted for a referendum. Worst of all, the old flag isn't even one of the options!
Edwards, much like John McCain before him, has shown little evidence of winning primaries in which only members of his own party can vote. He has done better in states like Wisconsin and South Carolina, which allow Republicans and independents into the process. He has gone out of his way to talk about race at every single campaign stop and the particular responsibility he feels towards the issue as a product of the South.
The very image of the positive New South, the senior senator from North Carolina represents everything that Southern heritage Republicans detest. Most of those who turn out will vote in the Republican primary for George W. Bush, a candidate who has represented their interests and agenda better than any president since Buchanan. Some, however, will request a Democratic ballot. How ironic it would be if John Edwards won his greatest victory riding their Confederate coattails.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Civil rights purists, the Supreme Court and the 2004 election, Part I
The sudden existence of gay marriage has radically shifted the political realities on the ground. The Bush forces expected to bash the eventual nominee into the ground on civil unions. John Kerry, who once seemed radically liberal for this reason is now considered a sellout because his position has not changed in three weeks.
His support of a constitutional amendment that would provide for civil unions in Massachusetts (but ban marriage) has provoked understandable outrage from gay activists.
Well, a white knight has finally appeared. Ralph Nader has come to the rescue. It was an obvious strategic decision, an easy yet dramatic way to set himself apart.
It’s always easier to be a purist when you don't expect to win, when your own rights aren't at stake, and when you don't really care about an issue. Ralph Nader has proven that in spades, beginning in 1996 when he dismissed gay rights and abortion as "gonadal politics" he wanted no part of. Nader has reinvented himself as an advocate of gay marriage just in time for the 2004 election, so that he can convince yet another generation of white, upper class dupes that there is no difference between the most liberal U.S. senator, a man with a 100% record with the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, and George W. Bush.
Because this is such an incredibly personal issue, I have no doubt that Nader will be able to get support from many who believe this to be the defining civil rights issue of our time. Let them remember simply that the most significant change in gay rights in the last decades was Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court voiding sodomy laws in 13 states. The ruling did not create legal protections against, for example, employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) does not have anywhere near the 60 votes required to end a filibuster in the Senate and would not even be brought to a vote in the House so long as Dennis Hastert retains his speakership. The general direction of the Lawrence decision, however, suggests a real chance at declaring this kind of discrimination unconstitutional. There is no real chance of a legislative remedy.
But here's the thing. The Lawrence decision came on a 6-3 vote. In 2005, the current justices' ages will be: Rehnquist: 80, Stevens: 84; O’Connor: 74, Ginsburg:71; Scalia: 68, Kennedy: 68; Souter: 66, Breyer: 66, and Thomas: 55. There is every reason to expect the retirement of two or three justices next term. My guess is that they will be John Paul Stevens, the only remaining liberal on the Court, O'Connor, a conservative swing vote, and segregationist Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Had Bush replacements already come in, Bowers v Hardwick would still be the law of the land; the Lawrence decision revoking it would have gone 5-4 the other way. If they come in now, they will at the very least, end further progress in the jurisprudential direction begun in Lawrence and the earlier Romer decisions and could go do far as to re-revoke them.
If John Kerry, on the other hand, gets to name a new Chief Justice and replace Stevens and O’Connor, the balance of power in the Supreme Court will shift decidedly to the left. His appointments would create a center-liberal majority (Two replacements plus Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg) that has not existed for a quarter century. This would have decades-long effects on the interpretations of constitutional rights in America. The Supreme Court will once again be the forum of remedial justice that it ought to be.
Read Part Two here.
His support of a constitutional amendment that would provide for civil unions in Massachusetts (but ban marriage) has provoked understandable outrage from gay activists.
Well, a white knight has finally appeared. Ralph Nader has come to the rescue. It was an obvious strategic decision, an easy yet dramatic way to set himself apart.
It’s always easier to be a purist when you don't expect to win, when your own rights aren't at stake, and when you don't really care about an issue. Ralph Nader has proven that in spades, beginning in 1996 when he dismissed gay rights and abortion as "gonadal politics" he wanted no part of. Nader has reinvented himself as an advocate of gay marriage just in time for the 2004 election, so that he can convince yet another generation of white, upper class dupes that there is no difference between the most liberal U.S. senator, a man with a 100% record with the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, and George W. Bush.
Because this is such an incredibly personal issue, I have no doubt that Nader will be able to get support from many who believe this to be the defining civil rights issue of our time. Let them remember simply that the most significant change in gay rights in the last decades was Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court voiding sodomy laws in 13 states. The ruling did not create legal protections against, for example, employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) does not have anywhere near the 60 votes required to end a filibuster in the Senate and would not even be brought to a vote in the House so long as Dennis Hastert retains his speakership. The general direction of the Lawrence decision, however, suggests a real chance at declaring this kind of discrimination unconstitutional. There is no real chance of a legislative remedy.
But here's the thing. The Lawrence decision came on a 6-3 vote. In 2005, the current justices' ages will be: Rehnquist: 80, Stevens: 84; O’Connor: 74, Ginsburg:71; Scalia: 68, Kennedy: 68; Souter: 66, Breyer: 66, and Thomas: 55. There is every reason to expect the retirement of two or three justices next term. My guess is that they will be John Paul Stevens, the only remaining liberal on the Court, O'Connor, a conservative swing vote, and segregationist Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Had Bush replacements already come in, Bowers v Hardwick would still be the law of the land; the Lawrence decision revoking it would have gone 5-4 the other way. If they come in now, they will at the very least, end further progress in the jurisprudential direction begun in Lawrence and the earlier Romer decisions and could go do far as to re-revoke them.
If John Kerry, on the other hand, gets to name a new Chief Justice and replace Stevens and O’Connor, the balance of power in the Supreme Court will shift decidedly to the left. His appointments would create a center-liberal majority (Two replacements plus Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg) that has not existed for a quarter century. This would have decades-long effects on the interpretations of constitutional rights in America. The Supreme Court will once again be the forum of remedial justice that it ought to be.
Read Part Two here.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Luckovich at the debate
Mike Luckovich went to Los Angeles Thursday for the Democratic debate. This was the result.
John Kerry, Democrat
On 251 key votes over the course of his Senate career, Kerry voted with his party 90% of the time, and opposed the party 10% of the time. Just in the 108th Congress, during which he would have been positioning himself to run for the nomination, Kerry voted with the party on every one of the seven votes he cast. Ted Kennedy voted with the party 87% of the time, on 474 key votes, over the course of a career twice as long as Kerry's. (Key votes are defined by Congressional Quarterly, the source of these numbers.)
Friday, February 27, 2004
John Kerry, liberal.
The National Journal's annual vote rankings show John Kerry is the nation's most liberal senator and that John Edwards is fourth. How lucky are we to have this choice?
One of the most remarkable things about this presidential season has been the degree to which ideological issues were muddled by the war. Howard Dean's record was always to the right of Kerry on most issues (including, historically, foreign policy) but no one really knew. After the scream heard around the world but to a degree even before, the national media decided Dean was "too liberal." Why? Because most people equate "liberal" with "nutty."
The Dean revolution, much as we have admired it in these pages, was always more about process and tone than policy. Dean was to the right of what one would expect from a Northeastern Democrat. Kerry, on the other hand, was to the left, and had a 19 year voting record to match, a record we will be bashed with every day for the next eight months.
The perception of Kerry as a moderate is all about style, demeanor and biography. He was always the most liberal major candidate in this race. He was one of the few senators to sponsor the employment nondiscrimination act for gays and lesbians--in 1985, not just 1996.
He was one of only 14 senators to oppose DOMA in 1996. Neither of Vermont's senators, for example, had the courage to do so at the time. Bill Bradley, Barbara Mikulski and Tom Harkin voted for it. Even Paul Wellstone voted for it. John Kerry was also one of the few senators to oppose Clinton's ultimately ridiculous and counterproductive Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.
The events of the last two weeks have made everyone who was ever in this race except for Kucinich seem like an old fogey when it comes to gay rights. But make no mistake about it, John Kerry was there when it counted on civil rights, oftentimes when his party was not. That includes affirmative action and a number of issues related to race, as witnessed by a 100% NAACP rating.
Peter has already written on the viability and importance of his health care proposal, which, because it involves the details of actual policy, has yet to be covered intelligently by the national media.
Ralph Nader and many on the blogosphere will no doubt make the case that there isn't a whole lot of difference between John Kerry and George Bush when it comes to issues of principle, and I understand some of the reasons they may have for saying that.
But they are wrong.
If John Kerry loses, the DLC in 2008 will find its candidate in Hillary Clinton, a candidate to the right of everyone in this race except, maybe, for Lieberman. And she will win the nomination for exactly the opposite reason Kerry is getting this one: she appears more liberal than she actually is.
The left may not see it now, but before them is the first opportunity it has had to put a liberal Democrat in office since 1988 and 1972. Democrats rarely nominate liberal candidates. This is the first time since Michael Dukakis that the nominee for President was not a member of the DLC. It is thus a moment of tremendous opportunity. We will not regret a John Kerry presidency. The consequences of his loss for the Democratic Party, on the other hand, could be disastrous.
One of the most remarkable things about this presidential season has been the degree to which ideological issues were muddled by the war. Howard Dean's record was always to the right of Kerry on most issues (including, historically, foreign policy) but no one really knew. After the scream heard around the world but to a degree even before, the national media decided Dean was "too liberal." Why? Because most people equate "liberal" with "nutty."
The Dean revolution, much as we have admired it in these pages, was always more about process and tone than policy. Dean was to the right of what one would expect from a Northeastern Democrat. Kerry, on the other hand, was to the left, and had a 19 year voting record to match, a record we will be bashed with every day for the next eight months.
The perception of Kerry as a moderate is all about style, demeanor and biography. He was always the most liberal major candidate in this race. He was one of the few senators to sponsor the employment nondiscrimination act for gays and lesbians--in 1985, not just 1996.
He was one of only 14 senators to oppose DOMA in 1996. Neither of Vermont's senators, for example, had the courage to do so at the time. Bill Bradley, Barbara Mikulski and Tom Harkin voted for it. Even Paul Wellstone voted for it. John Kerry was also one of the few senators to oppose Clinton's ultimately ridiculous and counterproductive Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.
The events of the last two weeks have made everyone who was ever in this race except for Kucinich seem like an old fogey when it comes to gay rights. But make no mistake about it, John Kerry was there when it counted on civil rights, oftentimes when his party was not. That includes affirmative action and a number of issues related to race, as witnessed by a 100% NAACP rating.
Peter has already written on the viability and importance of his health care proposal, which, because it involves the details of actual policy, has yet to be covered intelligently by the national media.
Ralph Nader and many on the blogosphere will no doubt make the case that there isn't a whole lot of difference between John Kerry and George Bush when it comes to issues of principle, and I understand some of the reasons they may have for saying that.
But they are wrong.
If John Kerry loses, the DLC in 2008 will find its candidate in Hillary Clinton, a candidate to the right of everyone in this race except, maybe, for Lieberman. And she will win the nomination for exactly the opposite reason Kerry is getting this one: she appears more liberal than she actually is.
The left may not see it now, but before them is the first opportunity it has had to put a liberal Democrat in office since 1988 and 1972. Democrats rarely nominate liberal candidates. This is the first time since Michael Dukakis that the nominee for President was not a member of the DLC. It is thus a moment of tremendous opportunity. We will not regret a John Kerry presidency. The consequences of his loss for the Democratic Party, on the other hand, could be disastrous.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
John Edwards III
No, not poor John Edwards this time. He provided the best one minute answer to the tax and finance issues by saying very simply that he would remove the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year and increase the capital gains tax on those making over $300,000 a year.
If Gore had said something as concrete instead of the "top 1%," a concept incomprehensible to nearly half of Americans, we would have been watching a Republican debate tonight.
If Gore had said something as concrete instead of the "top 1%," a concept incomprehensible to nearly half of Americans, we would have been watching a Republican debate tonight.
Poor John Edwards, Part II
John Edwards was doing some damage (not huge damage, but some damage) on trade. He made it personal with stories of the closing of his father's mill. Kerry came back reasonably effectively, making, incidentally, a fairly substantive and intellectually honest (though potentially unpopular, at least in Ohio) defense of free trade.
In a one on one debate, Edwards charges might have stuck. But then the other two candidates came in and outflanked both candidates by advocating the abolition of NAFTA. Sharpton then put Edwards in the same box as Kerry on the subject by adding, "We've got to keep you guys honest."
In a one on one debate, Edwards charges might have stuck. But then the other two candidates came in and outflanked both candidates by advocating the abolition of NAFTA. Sharpton then put Edwards in the same box as Kerry on the subject by adding, "We've got to keep you guys honest."
Guess what John Kerry's first act in office would be?
Larry King just asked John Kerry what his first executive order would be as President. It speaks to everything John Kerry is that his response was incomprehensible to most American voters and yet one of the most crucial policy issues facing humanity: "I would reverse the the Mexico City policy and the gag rule.
Pity poor John Edwards
If he had been one on one against John Kerry, he might have had a chance. But Sharpton is killing him. He has had the best lines of the night and has made John Edwards look far more conservative than he might otherwise. He has also diverted attention from Edwards' message.
Kerry has been far from stellar, and his responses to Ron Brownstein's very specific questions on gay marriage led to a statement that DOMA is constitutional and that he was wrong when he said it might not be during his Senate speech against it in 1996.
We're only a half hour into it, but the winners so far are Al Sharpton and John Kerry.
Kerry has been far from stellar, and his responses to Ron Brownstein's very specific questions on gay marriage led to a statement that DOMA is constitutional and that he was wrong when he said it might not be during his Senate speech against it in 1996.
We're only a half hour into it, but the winners so far are Al Sharpton and John Kerry.
"In my own backyard"
Late evidence that Edwards might be right after all. A Survey USA poll of voters in Edwards' home state of North Carolina shows Kerry losing to Bush 53-42, but Bush losing to Edwards, 50-47.
This would have been explosive news a few weeks ago. But most likely it comes too late to help John Edwards, even if he wins Ohio, Georgia and, unexpectedly, Maryland.
This would have been explosive news a few weeks ago. But most likely it comes too late to help John Edwards, even if he wins Ohio, Georgia and, unexpectedly, Maryland.
Texas governor might not be homosexual after all.
The Austin Chronicle says Governor Rick Perry might not be a homosexual.
Once again, there is no available evidence sufficient to prove the Texas governor's homosexuality, potentially a relief to Republican fundamentalists concerned that someone might have already had a gay marriage in George W. Bush's adopted state.
Many thanks to the Austin Chronicle for their valiant investigative attempts.
Once again, there is no available evidence sufficient to prove the Texas governor's homosexuality, potentially a relief to Republican fundamentalists concerned that someone might have already had a gay marriage in George W. Bush's adopted state.
Many thanks to the Austin Chronicle for their valiant investigative attempts.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Set your VCR's
New ARG numbers are out:
Georgia: Kerry 45, Edwards 37 (Sharpton 4%)
Ohio: Kerry 47, Edwards 26 (native son Kucinich 11)
New York: Kerry 54, Edwards 21 (Sharpton 8%)
If the Wisconsin phenomenon repeats, Edwards could win Georgia and come close in Ohio, but it's hard to see him winning anywhere else next Tuesday. An Edwards victory in Ohio could force Kerry to put him on the ticket (a decision I believe he is otherwise unlikely to make); a defeated Kerry would make him look like damaged goods in the state he needs more than any other to become president.
An Edwards victory in Georgia could have similar effect on Edwards if he can make a plausible case for a spillover effect in the Florida panhandle.
One question is whether Edwards could convert victories in Georgia and Ohio into victories in Florida (SUSA shows Kerry ahead by a lopsided 62-25 there) and Texas the following week A second question is whether it will matter; Kerry will have, for all practical purposes, an insurmountable delegate lead by the end of Tuesday night.
The way I see it, no Edwards victory on March 2nd means he drops out on March 3rd. A victory in Georgia alone might mean he drops out, particularly if there is no sign of his progress in Florida. Victories in OH and GA might make it difficult for him not to go on, even though he will have no real shot at the nomination. A devastating defeat in Florida on the 9th would prove deeply damaging to his ticket prospects, particularly without an Ohio victory to back it up. Barring a landslide, after all, Democrats don't have a prayer of carrying South Carolina and Georgia.
Expect a big announcement from John Edwards on March 3rd.
Georgia: Kerry 45, Edwards 37 (Sharpton 4%)
Ohio: Kerry 47, Edwards 26 (native son Kucinich 11)
New York: Kerry 54, Edwards 21 (Sharpton 8%)
If the Wisconsin phenomenon repeats, Edwards could win Georgia and come close in Ohio, but it's hard to see him winning anywhere else next Tuesday. An Edwards victory in Ohio could force Kerry to put him on the ticket (a decision I believe he is otherwise unlikely to make); a defeated Kerry would make him look like damaged goods in the state he needs more than any other to become president.
An Edwards victory in Georgia could have similar effect on Edwards if he can make a plausible case for a spillover effect in the Florida panhandle.
One question is whether Edwards could convert victories in Georgia and Ohio into victories in Florida (SUSA shows Kerry ahead by a lopsided 62-25 there) and Texas the following week A second question is whether it will matter; Kerry will have, for all practical purposes, an insurmountable delegate lead by the end of Tuesday night.
The way I see it, no Edwards victory on March 2nd means he drops out on March 3rd. A victory in Georgia alone might mean he drops out, particularly if there is no sign of his progress in Florida. Victories in OH and GA might make it difficult for him not to go on, even though he will have no real shot at the nomination. A devastating defeat in Florida on the 9th would prove deeply damaging to his ticket prospects, particularly without an Ohio victory to back it up. Barring a landslide, after all, Democrats don't have a prayer of carrying South Carolina and Georgia.
Expect a big announcement from John Edwards on March 3rd.
Missouri voters on the Bush-Nader Amendment
Is this a political winner for Bush in one of the three states that could decide this election? It's hard to say.
An ABC News--Washington Post survey last month found that six in 10 Americans prefer to let states define marriage on their own.
A majority of Missouri voters, by contrast, would welcome a federal standard like the one Bush has endorsed.
But that doesn't mean that Bush has an automatic edge on his Democratic rival here in the heartland come November.
Even in this community of 11,000 — which overwhelmingly backed Bush in the last election — voters made it clear that gay marriage is not high on their list of concerns as they weigh presidential candidates.
They're far more interested, they said, in hearing detailed proposals to create jobs, make healthcare more affordable and improve education. They're also upset with the course of the war in Iraq — and some are hoping a new commander in chief might turn things around.
"I got to church on Sunday and I read my Bible, and my point of view is that marriage should be a man and a woman, so I'm for what Bush is saying," said Ray Spavale, 64. "But I might vote for [Massachusetts Sen. John F.] Kerry this time around. Bush jumped into the war in Iraq too soon. I don't like to see our young men dying."
"It would take a lot more than this one issue to make me vote for Bush," said Carolyn Baynes, 70, a retired credit specialist who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Interviews with two dozen shoppers Tuesday in this well-off suburb west of St. Louis found passions running high on the subject of gay and lesbian marriage. Just about everyone had an opinion — and a vehement one — on whether the state should sanction same-sex unions.
Yet many also expressed ambivalence about turning their private, often religiously rooted, beliefs into a political crusade.
"I'm a Christian girl, and I know what the Bible says about marriage," said Tina DiBianca, 37, a cosmetologist. "But I also know that the Bible says: 'Judge not.' A gay marriage shouldn't be done in church. God wouldn't want that. But I'm not opposed to people having rights. They can't help what they feel."
She still has not decided, she said, whether an amendment is necessary.
Construction contractor Robert Diamante has made up his mind: Much as he recoils from the idea of same-sex marriage, he does not want to tamper with the Constitution. He's uneasy with the federal government imposing a value system on its citizens — even a value system he happens to agree with.
"This is America," said Diamante, 39. "People can live their own lives."
An ABC News--Washington Post survey last month found that six in 10 Americans prefer to let states define marriage on their own.
A majority of Missouri voters, by contrast, would welcome a federal standard like the one Bush has endorsed.
But that doesn't mean that Bush has an automatic edge on his Democratic rival here in the heartland come November.
Even in this community of 11,000 — which overwhelmingly backed Bush in the last election — voters made it clear that gay marriage is not high on their list of concerns as they weigh presidential candidates.
They're far more interested, they said, in hearing detailed proposals to create jobs, make healthcare more affordable and improve education. They're also upset with the course of the war in Iraq — and some are hoping a new commander in chief might turn things around.
"I got to church on Sunday and I read my Bible, and my point of view is that marriage should be a man and a woman, so I'm for what Bush is saying," said Ray Spavale, 64. "But I might vote for [Massachusetts Sen. John F.] Kerry this time around. Bush jumped into the war in Iraq too soon. I don't like to see our young men dying."
"It would take a lot more than this one issue to make me vote for Bush," said Carolyn Baynes, 70, a retired credit specialist who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Interviews with two dozen shoppers Tuesday in this well-off suburb west of St. Louis found passions running high on the subject of gay and lesbian marriage. Just about everyone had an opinion — and a vehement one — on whether the state should sanction same-sex unions.
Yet many also expressed ambivalence about turning their private, often religiously rooted, beliefs into a political crusade.
"I'm a Christian girl, and I know what the Bible says about marriage," said Tina DiBianca, 37, a cosmetologist. "But I also know that the Bible says: 'Judge not.' A gay marriage shouldn't be done in church. God wouldn't want that. But I'm not opposed to people having rights. They can't help what they feel."
She still has not decided, she said, whether an amendment is necessary.
Construction contractor Robert Diamante has made up his mind: Much as he recoils from the idea of same-sex marriage, he does not want to tamper with the Constitution. He's uneasy with the federal government imposing a value system on its citizens — even a value system he happens to agree with.
"This is America," said Diamante, 39. "People can live their own lives."
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Survey USA Polls
AZ poll: Bush 52, Kerry 44
IN poll: Bush 51 Kerry 45
KY poll: Bush 57 Kerry 41
The Arizona numbers do not bode well for a coast-plus-Southwest strategy, particularly if it's true that Kerry has a 5 point lead over Bush nationwide. And they certainly suggest that Kentucky, which Clinton carried twice, has gotten red beyond the point of return.
The Indiana numbers, on the other hand, are kind of interesting.
IN poll: Bush 51 Kerry 45
KY poll: Bush 57 Kerry 41
The Arizona numbers do not bode well for a coast-plus-Southwest strategy, particularly if it's true that Kerry has a 5 point lead over Bush nationwide. And they certainly suggest that Kentucky, which Clinton carried twice, has gotten red beyond the point of return.
The Indiana numbers, on the other hand, are kind of interesting.
Log Cabins and Andy: Congratulations! All that hard work finally paid off!
To the 1.1 million gay people who voted for Bush in 2000: it's a shame that this amendment and the hatred his campaign for it will engender won't be limited to you. I hope the pleasures of screwing the poor and that $500 tax break were worth the loss of your civil rights.
Monday, February 23, 2004
A turning tide in the South
Democrats have come to realize they can win the presidency without a single Southern state. John Edwards may not just be the last man left in the race with John Kerry, but also the last man to believe the South matters to Democrats. Kerry expressed his doubts about the region - and to his chagrin, was reminded of it right before the South Carolina primary - but his well-publicized claim that Al Gore proved we don't need the South is fast becoming conventional wisdom. In a twist on that theme, Cliff Schecter and Ruy Teixeira argue that Democrats have to look like they want the South - but not actually win it - in order to draw moderate voters elsewhere. As Sini has pointed out numerous times, states like Ohio will be the key to winning this November.
I have no problems with this argument in terms of strategy. To hell with the states that vote Republican every time, right? Why compete in the South if it's not necessary to winning? But there's a problem. What worries me is a faint echo of the year 1896 - the last election year before a previous era of noncompetition began in the South, which was followed by the more progressive of the two parties abandoning the South and moving West. We may have already seen our own 1896 fly by.
That year heralded the final death toll for Reconstruction. Actually, Reconstruction had begun to end 20 years earlier, bringing to a close a federally enforced experiment in the South that gave former slaves the taste of freedom and allowed them to elect black representatives to Congress. But the Republican Party's decision to stop competing for Southern votes - after years of trying - sealed the fate of blacks in the region for the next half century. The South descended into a counter-Reconstruction that completely erased blacks' political gains and gave birth to a new institution of near-slavery, sharecropping. Lynchings increased dramatically as a way of enforcing the post-slavery racial hierarchy. Historians often refer to the period between Reconstruction and World War I as the "nadir" of black history.
I don't mean that the consequences of abandoning the South today will be so dire. Not nearly. I don't expect the black South to fall into a nadir like the last one, not even a lesser one. Black incumbents will retain seats in Congress thanks to the Voting Rights Act. In fact, blacks may continue to lead better lives in the South than they do in other parts of the country, due to past efforts at desegregation and the fact they they suffer fewer urban ills there. No - I just mean that there will be consequences of some kind, that shifts in the bigger political picture can have real consequences on the ground.
The lack of attention to minority concerns is already apparent. Look at the Democratic primary campaign: the white candidate with the best bona fides on race (by which I mean past experience, not current campaign talk) was Joe Lieberman - he marched with Martin Luther King and went to Mississippi to register black voters.
By contrast, Edwards, the candidate that one would expect to bear the imprimatur of white-candidate-best-liked-by-blacks since he's a Southern Democrat in the mold of Bill Clinton, led a life remarkably untouched by race.
Kerry fought alongside black soldiers in Vienam, but in the Senate he focused mainly on issues like the environment, fiscal discipline, and U.S. conduct abroad. Kerry made his most well known foray into matters of race when he questioned affirmative action in a speech in 1992. (Wesley Clark brought up that speech a month ago on the campaign trail, but it got little attention. To be fair, Kerry did not explicitly oppose affirmative action, but acknowledged problems with it.)
All that Howard Dean's supporters could ever invoke about him was the fact that the governor had requested a black roommate in college. And if nothing else, a sure sign that black influence in the Democratic Party is on the decline has been the candidacy of Al Sharpton, who consults with a Republican operative (and has at times endorsed Republicans in the past in New York state) in order to - as his "friend" Tucker Carlson says it - expose liberal hypocrisy. You can interpret that as the worst kind of opportunism, or as a strategy of desperation to augment black power, but either way it draws a stark contrast to the glory days of Jesse Jackson, the last man who tried to represent blacks to the rest of America in a presidential campaign.
That's the present. But I worry that the future looks bleaker for African American influence within the party. A Democratic campaign that runs entirely outside the South risks isolating black constituencies, exacerbating a trend that has already been worsening for a couple of decades. Redistricting in the 1980s that favored black incumbents by drawing lines to keep black voters together just happens to have been engineered - or at least helped along by - the Reagan White House, which wanted to dilute the Democratic Party's overall strength in the South by getting rid of districts with moderate white Democrats. Zel Miller's recent betrayal of his party may be just the latest manifestation of the ongoing weakening of the southern branch of the Democratic Party. This year, if the Democratic nominee abandons the South, Democratic presidential coattails could grow even shorter there, reducing the already slim likelihood of Democratic wins in most of the region. And Texas has already reduced the number of Democratic seats, thanks to the GOP's ruthless victory in the recent redistricting battle.
In a related vein, I relish the thought of the Democratic nominee choosing a Latino running mate from the Southwest, because of the impact it would have on the election - and the impact it would have on GOP leaders who seek to supplement their base with Latino voters (it would drive them crazy). At the same time, though, it hurts me to think that a Latino vice president would happen before an African American one, when there are so many deserving candidates and it's so long overdue.
All that said, there may be scenarios that I haven't thought of that could revive black influence in national politics. Ideally, you want a scenario in which both parties compete for black votes nationally, like they did in 1960 (when JFK and Nixon were both viewed as racial moderates). But there's another possibility.
Slate's Timothy Noah argues that the emergence of a "right-wing Nader" would cement a Democratic victory in November. He and Kos hold out hope for a third-party run by Roy Moore, the tablet-wielding former Chief Justice of Alabama, under the banner of the Constitution Party. If Moore runs he could draw disaffected social conservatives away from Bush.
The chance of Roy running are probably remoter than remote. But if he does, what I haven't seen talked about is the impact a Moore candidacy could have on the role of black votes. Imagine: all of sudden, the Southern states become the arena for a three-way race among two conservatives and one liberal. The majority of white voters split their votes between Bush and Moore, while black voters - as the only reliable Democratic constituency in the South - go solidly for the Democratic nominee, giving him a plurality of votes. The South becomes competitive, and blacks are pivotal. Now, I don't know how the numbers actually break down: do African Americans make up a large enough pool of voters to come out ahead of both potential-Moore voters and Bush voters? I'll throw the notion out as a possibility, and leave it to the number-crunchers to work it out.
What I do know is that minority groups have been successful at making their votes count in the past when faced with a white vote split by two relatively conservative candidates.
The great value that has come from black influence within the Democratic Party has been the resulting emphasis on civil rights and social equality. I fear for the party, for America, if it loses that.
I have no problems with this argument in terms of strategy. To hell with the states that vote Republican every time, right? Why compete in the South if it's not necessary to winning? But there's a problem. What worries me is a faint echo of the year 1896 - the last election year before a previous era of noncompetition began in the South, which was followed by the more progressive of the two parties abandoning the South and moving West. We may have already seen our own 1896 fly by.
That year heralded the final death toll for Reconstruction. Actually, Reconstruction had begun to end 20 years earlier, bringing to a close a federally enforced experiment in the South that gave former slaves the taste of freedom and allowed them to elect black representatives to Congress. But the Republican Party's decision to stop competing for Southern votes - after years of trying - sealed the fate of blacks in the region for the next half century. The South descended into a counter-Reconstruction that completely erased blacks' political gains and gave birth to a new institution of near-slavery, sharecropping. Lynchings increased dramatically as a way of enforcing the post-slavery racial hierarchy. Historians often refer to the period between Reconstruction and World War I as the "nadir" of black history.
I don't mean that the consequences of abandoning the South today will be so dire. Not nearly. I don't expect the black South to fall into a nadir like the last one, not even a lesser one. Black incumbents will retain seats in Congress thanks to the Voting Rights Act. In fact, blacks may continue to lead better lives in the South than they do in other parts of the country, due to past efforts at desegregation and the fact they they suffer fewer urban ills there. No - I just mean that there will be consequences of some kind, that shifts in the bigger political picture can have real consequences on the ground.
The lack of attention to minority concerns is already apparent. Look at the Democratic primary campaign: the white candidate with the best bona fides on race (by which I mean past experience, not current campaign talk) was Joe Lieberman - he marched with Martin Luther King and went to Mississippi to register black voters.
By contrast, Edwards, the candidate that one would expect to bear the imprimatur of white-candidate-best-liked-by-blacks since he's a Southern Democrat in the mold of Bill Clinton, led a life remarkably untouched by race.
Kerry fought alongside black soldiers in Vienam, but in the Senate he focused mainly on issues like the environment, fiscal discipline, and U.S. conduct abroad. Kerry made his most well known foray into matters of race when he questioned affirmative action in a speech in 1992. (Wesley Clark brought up that speech a month ago on the campaign trail, but it got little attention. To be fair, Kerry did not explicitly oppose affirmative action, but acknowledged problems with it.)
All that Howard Dean's supporters could ever invoke about him was the fact that the governor had requested a black roommate in college. And if nothing else, a sure sign that black influence in the Democratic Party is on the decline has been the candidacy of Al Sharpton, who consults with a Republican operative (and has at times endorsed Republicans in the past in New York state) in order to - as his "friend" Tucker Carlson says it - expose liberal hypocrisy. You can interpret that as the worst kind of opportunism, or as a strategy of desperation to augment black power, but either way it draws a stark contrast to the glory days of Jesse Jackson, the last man who tried to represent blacks to the rest of America in a presidential campaign.
That's the present. But I worry that the future looks bleaker for African American influence within the party. A Democratic campaign that runs entirely outside the South risks isolating black constituencies, exacerbating a trend that has already been worsening for a couple of decades. Redistricting in the 1980s that favored black incumbents by drawing lines to keep black voters together just happens to have been engineered - or at least helped along by - the Reagan White House, which wanted to dilute the Democratic Party's overall strength in the South by getting rid of districts with moderate white Democrats. Zel Miller's recent betrayal of his party may be just the latest manifestation of the ongoing weakening of the southern branch of the Democratic Party. This year, if the Democratic nominee abandons the South, Democratic presidential coattails could grow even shorter there, reducing the already slim likelihood of Democratic wins in most of the region. And Texas has already reduced the number of Democratic seats, thanks to the GOP's ruthless victory in the recent redistricting battle.
In a related vein, I relish the thought of the Democratic nominee choosing a Latino running mate from the Southwest, because of the impact it would have on the election - and the impact it would have on GOP leaders who seek to supplement their base with Latino voters (it would drive them crazy). At the same time, though, it hurts me to think that a Latino vice president would happen before an African American one, when there are so many deserving candidates and it's so long overdue.
All that said, there may be scenarios that I haven't thought of that could revive black influence in national politics. Ideally, you want a scenario in which both parties compete for black votes nationally, like they did in 1960 (when JFK and Nixon were both viewed as racial moderates). But there's another possibility.
Slate's Timothy Noah argues that the emergence of a "right-wing Nader" would cement a Democratic victory in November. He and Kos hold out hope for a third-party run by Roy Moore, the tablet-wielding former Chief Justice of Alabama, under the banner of the Constitution Party. If Moore runs he could draw disaffected social conservatives away from Bush.
The chance of Roy running are probably remoter than remote. But if he does, what I haven't seen talked about is the impact a Moore candidacy could have on the role of black votes. Imagine: all of sudden, the Southern states become the arena for a three-way race among two conservatives and one liberal. The majority of white voters split their votes between Bush and Moore, while black voters - as the only reliable Democratic constituency in the South - go solidly for the Democratic nominee, giving him a plurality of votes. The South becomes competitive, and blacks are pivotal. Now, I don't know how the numbers actually break down: do African Americans make up a large enough pool of voters to come out ahead of both potential-Moore voters and Bush voters? I'll throw the notion out as a possibility, and leave it to the number-crunchers to work it out.
What I do know is that minority groups have been successful at making their votes count in the past when faced with a white vote split by two relatively conservative candidates.
The great value that has come from black influence within the Democratic Party has been the resulting emphasis on civil rights and social equality. I fear for the party, for America, if it loses that.
Censored forum
Why would Craig's List in Houston censor one of its forums on Texas politics? Makes you think something is going on out in Texas that we're not supposed to know about.
Sharpton debts
Al Sharpton's campaign is $485,000 in debt. The Republican Party has more than enough money to reimburse him for services (poorly) rendered, but you have to imagine they may be stretched thin. Nader will run as an independent, not as a Green (of course since he didn't endorse the Green platform in the past, I suppose he ran as an independent before), so his backers may have to pay more than they expected to get him on the ballot in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri--you know, where he's most needed.
O'Reilly rally unlike anything else in the world. Except...
Scoobie Davis reports on a visit to a Bill O'Reilly event.
Since I had nothing to do for a couple hours, I decided to take a look at the audience members and see if they were "the working class" people O'Reilly prides himself on representing (I scanned the audience before, during, and after the event). The audience certainly wasn't representative of the working people of the great Los Angeles area. For one thing, this was an audience that was overwhelmingly white; there were about 700 audience members and I counted six whom I could tell were not white (that's less than one percent!) The last time I saw anything as close to this high a percentage of white people at an event in the LA area was a 2000 Nader rally in Long Beach.
Since I had nothing to do for a couple hours, I decided to take a look at the audience members and see if they were "the working class" people O'Reilly prides himself on representing (I scanned the audience before, during, and after the event). The audience certainly wasn't representative of the working people of the great Los Angeles area. For one thing, this was an audience that was overwhelmingly white; there were about 700 audience members and I counted six whom I could tell were not white (that's less than one percent!) The last time I saw anything as close to this high a percentage of white people at an event in the LA area was a 2000 Nader rally in Long Beach.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
They hate everyone but Mel
At St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, they're big fans of Mel Gibson. Oh, and they hate the Pope, subscribe to a centuries-old belief that Jews practice God-killing, and think the Holocaust never happened.
And isn't it just a little funny that although these traditionalist Catholics shun R-rated movies that lack Jesus Christ as the central character, the center's founder thinks it's fine to use an Oscar-winner with plenty of violence and no Christ to make this point:
Bersaw ... describes Pope John Paul II as "the worst pope we ever had," because he has prayed with non-Christians at Assisi. If he were present at the prayer session, Bersaw said, "I would have done what Mel Gibson did in 'Braveheart.' "
And isn't it just a little funny that although these traditionalist Catholics shun R-rated movies that lack Jesus Christ as the central character, the center's founder thinks it's fine to use an Oscar-winner with plenty of violence and no Christ to make this point:
Bersaw ... describes Pope John Paul II as "the worst pope we ever had," because he has prayed with non-Christians at Assisi. If he were present at the prayer session, Bersaw said, "I would have done what Mel Gibson did in 'Braveheart.' "
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Someone's helping to build a mosque
Hey, remember when I argued way-back-when that we should be building mosques in Iraq? Slate's got a good story on an American Episcopal church's noble if troubled attempt to do just that.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Sherman Sherman Sherman
I thought I couldn't be suckered into watching yet another trashy show on FOX.
Well, that's not really true. I was an easy victim once I found out that The Great American Celebrity Spelling Bee included Sherman Hemsley.
So far, his team is winning.
Well, that's not really true. I was an easy victim once I found out that The Great American Celebrity Spelling Bee included Sherman Hemsley.
So far, his team is winning.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Defeat Ron Wilson
The Burnt Orange Report, one of my most important sources of information this week, links to Alma Allen's site. Who is Alma Allen? She's the woman challenging Rep. Ron Wilson for the Democratic nomination in Texas District 131. Wilson, you will recall, was one of the two Democratic representatives whose votes helped Tom Delay's re-redistricting plan to become law in Texas.
Judging from the Chandler race, Democrats may find themselves unexpectedly competitive this year in congressional races. The goal post, however, has shifted. Enough Texas seats will go Republican, thanks to the redistricting, that Democrats are effectively down about 20 seats rather than 14.
All this was aided by the the behavior of nationally unknown (and rather bizarre) state representatives like Ron Wilson and, more dramatically, state senator John Whitmire's shocking betrayal of the brave Texas 11 . Defeating either of them will offer little in the way of consolation. But it will be a small act of justice.
Judging from the Chandler race, Democrats may find themselves unexpectedly competitive this year in congressional races. The goal post, however, has shifted. Enough Texas seats will go Republican, thanks to the redistricting, that Democrats are effectively down about 20 seats rather than 14.
All this was aided by the the behavior of nationally unknown (and rather bizarre) state representatives like Ron Wilson and, more dramatically, state senator John Whitmire's shocking betrayal of the brave Texas 11 . Defeating either of them will offer little in the way of consolation. But it will be a small act of justice.
Ohio Poll's Bush numbers
Today's Ohio Poll has Bush's approval and disapproval ratings even, at 49. The folks at the poll, unfortunately, were not so kind as to answer the one question that every political observer obsesses on: is Kerry ahead of Bush in the Buckeye State?
Until we have those numbers, we can always speculate. One interesting thing about most recent polls is that Bush's re-elect rating has fairly consistently been below his approval rating. In the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, for example, Bush's approval numbers were 51/46, yet Kerry beat Bush 51-46 in the matchup (approval numbers are not available for likely voters; it was among them that Kerry beat Bush 55-43. That discrepancy we leave for another day.).
If that many voters who approve of Bush don't want want to vote for him, he is in deep trouble. A 49/49 approval/disapproval rating (it's 45/51, incidentally, among Ohioans not registered to vote) almost certainly means that Kerry is ahead of him there.
Until we have those numbers, we can always speculate. One interesting thing about most recent polls is that Bush's re-elect rating has fairly consistently been below his approval rating. In the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, for example, Bush's approval numbers were 51/46, yet Kerry beat Bush 51-46 in the matchup (approval numbers are not available for likely voters; it was among them that Kerry beat Bush 55-43. That discrepancy we leave for another day.).
If that many voters who approve of Bush don't want want to vote for him, he is in deep trouble. A 49/49 approval/disapproval rating (it's 45/51, incidentally, among Ohioans not registered to vote) almost certainly means that Kerry is ahead of him there.
Will Dean donors fund Edwards?
The New York Times reports that the Edwards campaign has "raised $307,951 online since polls closed in Wisconsin, with nearly a third of the 3,821 online contributors new to his list of supporters."
To what extent will core Dean supporters may be willing to fund Edwards to stop Kerry? The power they have lacked in voting numbers they have in spades when it comes to money. While exit polling shows that former Dean voters in Wisconsin went to Kerry by a thin margin, my suspicion is that Dean donors may break differently.
To what extent will core Dean supporters may be willing to fund Edwards to stop Kerry? The power they have lacked in voting numbers they have in spades when it comes to money. While exit polling shows that former Dean voters in Wisconsin went to Kerry by a thin margin, my suspicion is that Dean donors may break differently.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Blast from the (awfully recent) past
Sometimes it's worth reviewing history.
Here's an anecdote that's barely a year old, when Bowers v. Hardwick was still the law of the land.
The day after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would review a Texas case that makes it illegal for homosexuals to have sex, our governor, Rick Perry, decreed that the state’s 28-year-old law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" is, in Perry’s words, perfectly "appropriate."
By that, Perry, a long, tall, boot-wearing Texan with a great head of hair that is the envy of Texans of all genders, did not mean that homosexual sex is appropriate.
On the contrary, Perry meant that our law—officially and ambitiously titled as the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law—is appropriate as it stands on our books.
Under this law, if two men or two women are caught having private oral or anal sex, they can be arrested, jailed and fined $200 for deviant sexual intercourse.
And look, here's a second one, just six months old:
"Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Perry said in a statement. "With passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas now joins more than 30 states in reinforcing that basic belief."
Here's an anecdote that's barely a year old, when Bowers v. Hardwick was still the law of the land.
The day after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would review a Texas case that makes it illegal for homosexuals to have sex, our governor, Rick Perry, decreed that the state’s 28-year-old law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" is, in Perry’s words, perfectly "appropriate."
By that, Perry, a long, tall, boot-wearing Texan with a great head of hair that is the envy of Texans of all genders, did not mean that homosexual sex is appropriate.
On the contrary, Perry meant that our law—officially and ambitiously titled as the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law—is appropriate as it stands on our books.
Under this law, if two men or two women are caught having private oral or anal sex, they can be arrested, jailed and fined $200 for deviant sexual intercourse.
And look, here's a second one, just six months old:
"Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman," Perry said in a statement. "With passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas now joins more than 30 states in reinforcing that basic belief."
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
NRA against Ashcroft? Start a chapter!
While I am glad that Hentoff has once again found something worth protesting, my gut feeling is that protests against the Patriot Act and John Ashcroft will have little electoral meaning unless gun owners are brought into the coalition. Any Democratic strategist or candidate who succeeds in this endeavor will win Democrats the election.
Chicken
Should Edwards have played chicken tonight and waited for Kerry to speak first? As it was, he lost a chance to deliver his message when Kerry deliberately stepped in a minute later to take over the airwaves. A moment of pure politics--and some disappointment; even many Kerry supporters, after all, would probably rather hear Edwards.
Question: what are those 19 union leaders thinking tonight?
Question: what are those 19 union leaders thinking tonight?
Next Tuesday
It's just Utah's primary and Idaho's caucuses. If Dean drops out, can Edwards win either state? They are huge states but small in population, which makes retail politics potentially viable. If Edwards wins either of those, he will head to Super Tuesday with a huge amount of steam.
I don't know who these people are
But Bush has got to be worried that people are saying this in Miami.
More Mel Gibson Craziness!
Mel thinks Protestants are going to hell too . It's really not fair after all the shilling evangelicals have done for his film!
Piyush Bobby Bubba Brady is back!
This time he's hoping to make it into Congress and represent suburban New Orleans, a city he's not even from. Since the district is 67% Republican, it's Piyush Bubba's (and, apparently, God's) for the taking--unless a (white) Republican candidate accuses him of carpetbagging.
...Developing
My goodness, there sure are a lot of ...developing stories out there this fine Tuesday morning. Since we aren't Matt Drudge, let's just say that at least three of them are Texas sized, and if even one of them gets followed up on, we're in for some rather delicious payback over the next few months.
Let me just say about the first of them, though, that, the thing to consider is that they were illegal then, and he wants to make them illegal again. So it would have been the commission of a crime, and during a time in which he was, well, you know, not quite serving his country. And about the other one, well, you know what LBJ said about a live boy. But I am sure he never had Cabinet officials in mind! And about the last one, I guess someone went too far when he said he should be punished for his gambling!
Let me just say about the first of them, though, that, the thing to consider is that they were illegal then, and he wants to make them illegal again. So it would have been the commission of a crime, and during a time in which he was, well, you know, not quite serving his country. And about the other one, well, you know what LBJ said about a live boy. But I am sure he never had Cabinet officials in mind! And about the last one, I guess someone went too far when he said he should be punished for his gambling!
Mister Ed like you've never heard him before
Yes, that's right. Sherman Hemsley, George Jefferson himself, will be the voice of Mister Ed in an upcoming Fox production.
Monday, February 16, 2004
FRC: Davis=Arnold
I guess that recall wasn't worth it after all. Today Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer's replacement at the Family Research Council, issued a press release which reflects the Christian Right's hatred of pro-choice, pro-gay rights Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Gray Davis may just as well be governor of California. In a rebellious and anarchist gesture, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied California law last week when he instructed his county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting hundreds of homosexuals to line up over the weekend to exchange wedding vows at the San Francisco City Hall. The people of California approved Proposition 22 four years ago, defining marriage in California as the union between one man and one woman. Yet Newsom's renegade stunt has elicited silence from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has the authority to rein in the law-abusing mayor.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was remarkably gay friendly during the recall campaign. When Gray Davis signed domestic partner legistlation, Arnold proclaimed his support, while insisting that "gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." Well, you know what he meant.
He is being very quiet about recent events in San Francisco; I suspect that to a degree this may reflect his sympathies with those getting married. Soon, however, he may have to make decisions, particularly if San Francisco refuses to abide by court decisions the Governator will try to camouflage his views under. But how will he do so?
Will he show political courage and represent the wishes of his state by speaking out against his President's attempts to amend the Constitution? Will he make a strong defense of civil unions, now law in America's largest state? His nascent administration's cowardly public policy promises little, but regardless, this one is worth watching.
"Gray Davis may just as well be governor of California. In a rebellious and anarchist gesture, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied California law last week when he instructed his county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting hundreds of homosexuals to line up over the weekend to exchange wedding vows at the San Francisco City Hall. The people of California approved Proposition 22 four years ago, defining marriage in California as the union between one man and one woman. Yet Newsom's renegade stunt has elicited silence from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has the authority to rein in the law-abusing mayor.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was remarkably gay friendly during the recall campaign. When Gray Davis signed domestic partner legistlation, Arnold proclaimed his support, while insisting that "gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." Well, you know what he meant.
He is being very quiet about recent events in San Francisco; I suspect that to a degree this may reflect his sympathies with those getting married. Soon, however, he may have to make decisions, particularly if San Francisco refuses to abide by court decisions the Governator will try to camouflage his views under. But how will he do so?
Will he show political courage and represent the wishes of his state by speaking out against his President's attempts to amend the Constitution? Will he make a strong defense of civil unions, now law in America's largest state? His nascent administration's cowardly public policy promises little, but regardless, this one is worth watching.
Christian Right: "George W. Bush is not an authentic conservative"
Not only that. And get a load of this, Nader voters:
Voting for Bush over Gore was not “the lesser of two evils,” as it has often been said. It was more evil!
Amen to that, brother! Details and exhaustive footnotes here.
Voting for Bush over Gore was not “the lesser of two evils,” as it has often been said. It was more evil!
Amen to that, brother! Details and exhaustive footnotes here.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Should have tried harder
From ABC News' advertisement for Prime Time Live:
Gibson tells Sawyer that ultimately he was moved to depict Jesus' sacrifice on film after reaching "the height of spiritual bankruptcy" himself more than a decade ago. Things got so bad that he says he once contemplated hurling himself out a window.
Instead, he turned to the Bible.
And to a preconciliar version of Catholicism. Gibson is not a Roman Catholic. Born and raised an avowed schismatic, he rejects the changes brought to Catholicism by the Second Vatican Council--changes which included the condemnation of anti-Semitism.
The Passion won't, of course, be the first time Gibson has scapegoated a minority with such piety. That honor would go to Braveheart. In the end, I suppose, he is much less interesting than he appears to be--just one more in a long line of consequential but introspection-free crusaders from so many different faiths. Let's hope the fallout from his supposed Christianity is minimized. I'm not hopeful.
Gibson tells Sawyer that ultimately he was moved to depict Jesus' sacrifice on film after reaching "the height of spiritual bankruptcy" himself more than a decade ago. Things got so bad that he says he once contemplated hurling himself out a window.
Instead, he turned to the Bible.
And to a preconciliar version of Catholicism. Gibson is not a Roman Catholic. Born and raised an avowed schismatic, he rejects the changes brought to Catholicism by the Second Vatican Council--changes which included the condemnation of anti-Semitism.
The Passion won't, of course, be the first time Gibson has scapegoated a minority with such piety. That honor would go to Braveheart. In the end, I suppose, he is much less interesting than he appears to be--just one more in a long line of consequential but introspection-free crusaders from so many different faiths. Let's hope the fallout from his supposed Christianity is minimized. I'm not hopeful.
Sad end to the Buffyverse
Despite higher ratings this year, the WB has cancelled Angel after a five-year run. Let Joss Whedon have the last word; he deserves no less.
I've never made mainstream TV very well. I like surprises, and TV isn't about surprises, unless the surprise is who gets voted off of something. I've been lucky to sneak this strange, strange show over the airwaves for as long as I have. I don't FEEL lucky, but I understand that I am.
Thanks all for your support, your community, and your perfectly sane devotion. It's meant a lot. I regret nothing (except the string of grisley murders in the 80's -- what was THAT all about?) Remember the words of the poet:
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."
See you soon.
I've never made mainstream TV very well. I like surprises, and TV isn't about surprises, unless the surprise is who gets voted off of something. I've been lucky to sneak this strange, strange show over the airwaves for as long as I have. I don't FEEL lucky, but I understand that I am.
Thanks all for your support, your community, and your perfectly sane devotion. It's meant a lot. I regret nothing (except the string of grisley murders in the 80's -- what was THAT all about?) Remember the words of the poet:
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."
See you soon.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Larry David's courageous defense of George W. Bush
Ted Danson told Peter and me that "Crazy Larry" was a Clark supporter after a campaign stop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I guess he lied. Larry David's courageous defense of George W. Bush in today's New York Times is a powerful reminder to all Americans that they have reason to be proud of their Commander-in-Chief.
Let's hope Ted and Mary see past this betrayal. We wouldn't want Larry to have to see Paul Simon with Mrs. Steenbergen again.
What? You don't watch Curb Your Enthusiasm? It's only the best comedy in TV history. We even love the baptism and Wanda Sykes-free episodes. And it's our Pick of the Week.
Let's hope Ted and Mary see past this betrayal. We wouldn't want Larry to have to see Paul Simon with Mrs. Steenbergen again.
What? You don't watch Curb Your Enthusiasm? It's only the best comedy in TV history. We even love the baptism and Wanda Sykes-free episodes. And it's our Pick of the Week.
Sock it to 'em
Wesley Clark is going to make a great surrogate when our nominee needs it most:
Surrounded by veterans on the University of Wisconsin campus, Kerry and Clark appeared ebullient at the turn of events in the Democratic campaign. Clark, who ended his candidacy on Wednesday, turned to Kerry, a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, and said, 'Sir, request permission to come aboard. The Army's here.'
Surrounded by veterans on the University of Wisconsin campus, Kerry and Clark appeared ebullient at the turn of events in the Democratic campaign. Clark, who ended his candidacy on Wednesday, turned to Kerry, a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, and said, 'Sir, request permission to come aboard. The Army's here.'
Friday, February 13, 2004
The word is "slick"
What's important about the National Guard flap isn't that it'll end up proving beyond all doubt that Bush was AWOL; it probably won't. No, what's really important is that it's eating away at his credibility. As Mary Matalin said in 1992 about Bill Clinton (while she was the deputy campaign manager for Bush's father, and questioning Clinton's explanations of his draft record): "It's not about the draft, it's about the truth, and trustworthiness. ... It's a very clear illumination of a character flaw." (The New York Times, Sept. 10, 1992)
In fact, the White House's inept handling of Bush's promise on Meet the Press to release "everything" in order to resolve questions about his whereabouts in 1972 is becoming the latest in a series of missteps that may end up sticking Bush with the label of the "now-you-see-it now-you-don't" president. WMDs? Now you see it, now you don't. A good Medicare drug benefit? Now you see it, now you don't. The jobs projected? Now you see it, now you don't. The promise to release his military records? Now you see it, now you don't. The character thing didn't lose the election for Clinton. But for Bush, character's the only positive he's got.
In fact, the White House's inept handling of Bush's promise on Meet the Press to release "everything" in order to resolve questions about his whereabouts in 1972 is becoming the latest in a series of missteps that may end up sticking Bush with the label of the "now-you-see-it now-you-don't" president. WMDs? Now you see it, now you don't. A good Medicare drug benefit? Now you see it, now you don't. The jobs projected? Now you see it, now you don't. The promise to release his military records? Now you see it, now you don't. The character thing didn't lose the election for Clinton. But for Bush, character's the only positive he's got.
Nevada Poll
Nevada is very close to a must-win state for Democrats pursuing a Southwestern strategy. The latest Survey USA poll shows Bush 49%, Kerry 48%, with a 4.5% MOE---neither reassuring nor disastrous.
Startling New York City numbers
It's not surprising for New York City to support a Democrat, but an 88-7 margin is almost jarring. Wasn't the GOP convention date set in order to remind the country of the moment and location of his greatest triumph, when he brought hope and purpose to the country at Ground Zero?
There is only one thing more shocking than this: Al Sharpton getting only 15% of the black vote in his hometown. He would be well advised to withdraw before the New York primary. But will Roger Stone let him? He's no use to the right if he can't live to fight another day.
UPDATE: As our observant readers note, it's only 88% of Democrats--well, hell, that seems to be true everywhere. Why is this even in the headlines? As for Sharpton, he's still toast.
There is only one thing more shocking than this: Al Sharpton getting only 15% of the black vote in his hometown. He would be well advised to withdraw before the New York primary. But will Roger Stone let him? He's no use to the right if he can't live to fight another day.
UPDATE: As our observant readers note, it's only 88% of Democrats--well, hell, that seems to be true everywhere. Why is this even in the headlines? As for Sharpton, he's still toast.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
A look at the WP/ABC Poll
There is a whole lot to say about today's Washington Post/ABC News poll numbers showing Kerry leading Bush 52 to 43.
MOE caveats apply, of course (and even more so among subsamples), but let me just point out a few things, and hopefully Pat or Peter can take up the thread.
Bush's support remains far stronger than Kerry's. 85% say they support him strongly (which suggests a floor of support for Bush of about 37%), while only 62% say the same about Kerry.
Both candidates receive their strongest support from voters above 61 years of age. However, Kerry's staggering 20 point margin (57-37) among this high turnout crowd is the greatest lead by either candidate within any age group.
The gender gap is alive and well: while Kerry and Bush are tied among men (Bush leads 48 to 46), Kerry leads among women 55 to 38.
A clear majority of voters (57-41) say George Bush does not "understand the problems of people" like them. There is little difference here among regions, with the East and South four to five points less and more trustful respectively.
One of the most important changes in the electorate in the last two months has been a shift in its assessment of George W. Bush's character. Forty-five percent of Americans do not consider him trustworthy, while 52% do. The Midwest and West reflect this average, again with a five point difference in the East (sufficient for an outright majority to find him untrustworthy) in the South. Note that these numbers are actually comparable to Bill Clinton's numbers (50/41 or 44/46 depending how the question was phrased) in 1996.
And here's the shocker: what do you think Kerry's best regions are? The East perhaps? Think again. His best regions are the West... and the MIDWEST, where he leads by 12 points.
There is no reason to think Kerry's lead will last, particularly given his recent spate of positive free media and softer support (and even more particularly if today's bubbling-under-the-surface news has legs). I will point out that Gore lost the following states by 8 points or less: AR, AZ, GA, LA, MO, NV, NH, OH, TN, VA, WV. Add a properly adjudicated FL to the list and you've got 396 electoral votes. Finally, the Bush Administration has got to be concerned about the enthusiasm and high turnout among Democrats and independents in early states--and early signs of unhappiness among economic conservatives in the Republican party (indeed, the GOP may have more to fear from third parties in battleground states this time than Democrats did in 2000).
One last thing. When 45% of the country thinks a sitting president is not trustworthy (with the trendlines about to plummet further) and 57% find him lacking in empathy, his only chance at winning is voter perception of an improving economy between March and June. So far the movement has been in the wrong direction. And no amount of gaybashing is going to change that.
MOE caveats apply, of course (and even more so among subsamples), but let me just point out a few things, and hopefully Pat or Peter can take up the thread.
Bush's support remains far stronger than Kerry's. 85% say they support him strongly (which suggests a floor of support for Bush of about 37%), while only 62% say the same about Kerry.
Both candidates receive their strongest support from voters above 61 years of age. However, Kerry's staggering 20 point margin (57-37) among this high turnout crowd is the greatest lead by either candidate within any age group.
The gender gap is alive and well: while Kerry and Bush are tied among men (Bush leads 48 to 46), Kerry leads among women 55 to 38.
A clear majority of voters (57-41) say George Bush does not "understand the problems of people" like them. There is little difference here among regions, with the East and South four to five points less and more trustful respectively.
One of the most important changes in the electorate in the last two months has been a shift in its assessment of George W. Bush's character. Forty-five percent of Americans do not consider him trustworthy, while 52% do. The Midwest and West reflect this average, again with a five point difference in the East (sufficient for an outright majority to find him untrustworthy) in the South. Note that these numbers are actually comparable to Bill Clinton's numbers (50/41 or 44/46 depending how the question was phrased) in 1996.
And here's the shocker: what do you think Kerry's best regions are? The East perhaps? Think again. His best regions are the West... and the MIDWEST, where he leads by 12 points.
There is no reason to think Kerry's lead will last, particularly given his recent spate of positive free media and softer support (and even more particularly if today's bubbling-under-the-surface news has legs). I will point out that Gore lost the following states by 8 points or less: AR, AZ, GA, LA, MO, NV, NH, OH, TN, VA, WV. Add a properly adjudicated FL to the list and you've got 396 electoral votes. Finally, the Bush Administration has got to be concerned about the enthusiasm and high turnout among Democrats and independents in early states--and early signs of unhappiness among economic conservatives in the Republican party (indeed, the GOP may have more to fear from third parties in battleground states this time than Democrats did in 2000).
One last thing. When 45% of the country thinks a sitting president is not trustworthy (with the trendlines about to plummet further) and 57% find him lacking in empathy, his only chance at winning is voter perception of an improving economy between March and June. So far the movement has been in the wrong direction. And no amount of gaybashing is going to change that.
Another Trail to Follow
Suppose the statements of points earned by President Bush during his last two years in the National Guard are essentially valid, as I have argued for more than three years. That would still leave many questions open about what he was doing in 1972 and 1973 – you know, small stuff like where he was and exactly what he did to gain the points.
But it also raises the distinct possibility that Bush is reluctant to release all of his records for reasons that go beyond how he served after he stopped flying in May 1972.
Today, USA Today, reporting on the handling of Bush's records, states: "A second former Texas Guard official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, was told by a participant that commanders and Bush advisers were particularly worried about mentions in the records of arrests of Bush before he joined the National Guard in 1968, the second official said."
Now check out this passage from a 1999 New Republic piece by Michelle Cottle:
"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning Record reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said, "After 1968? No." I said, "What about before 1968?" He said, "Well ..." and at that moment Karen [Hughes] stepped in and said, "Wait a minute, I've not heard this." She clearly wasn't prepared for whatever it was he was about to say, and he shut up.' Slater argued that it was better for the governor to deal with any revelations sooner rather than later, and Bush agreed to get back to him on the matter. 'To this day I have no idea what he was going to say,' says Slater. 'After she got to him, he shut up.'"
In considering this document (look at the bottom), you have to wonder whether there's more to to Bush's earlier record than the Christmas-wreath-at-Yale prank he has confessed to.
Asking the President if he was ever arrested before 1968 would seem to be a pretty straightforward proposition. Let's see who gets there first.
But it also raises the distinct possibility that Bush is reluctant to release all of his records for reasons that go beyond how he served after he stopped flying in May 1972.
Today, USA Today, reporting on the handling of Bush's records, states: "A second former Texas Guard official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, was told by a participant that commanders and Bush advisers were particularly worried about mentions in the records of arrests of Bush before he joined the National Guard in 1968, the second official said."
Now check out this passage from a 1999 New Republic piece by Michelle Cottle:
"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning Record reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said, "After 1968? No." I said, "What about before 1968?" He said, "Well ..." and at that moment Karen [Hughes] stepped in and said, "Wait a minute, I've not heard this." She clearly wasn't prepared for whatever it was he was about to say, and he shut up.' Slater argued that it was better for the governor to deal with any revelations sooner rather than later, and Bush agreed to get back to him on the matter. 'To this day I have no idea what he was going to say,' says Slater. 'After she got to him, he shut up.'"
In considering this document (look at the bottom), you have to wonder whether there's more to to Bush's earlier record than the Christmas-wreath-at-Yale prank he has confessed to.
Asking the President if he was ever arrested before 1968 would seem to be a pretty straightforward proposition. Let's see who gets there first.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
A Feeding Frenzy
Scott McClellan seems to have one on his hands right now about President Bush and his National Guard service.
You can't say the administration hasn't earned this.
You can't say the administration hasn't earned this.
A More Basic Question
Today, Scott McClellan said the White House plans to release records showing President Bush was paid for fulfilling his National Guard duties. Okay. The White House is also re-releasing the summaries of the retirement points Bush earned in the Guard. Um, okay again. Plenty of analysts, including me in the posts below, have already subjected those documents to exhaustive analysis.
McClellan's point is that "these records clearly document the President fulfilling his duties." Well, it's good to know that Bush wasn't a deserter -- a remarkably low standard for a future commander-in-chief, wouldn't you say? -- but the debate on this issue is shifting. Rather than being satisfied with technical proof that Bush wasn't AWOL, people are beginning to wonder why the administration doesn't seem to be able to offer any affirmative answers to questions about Bush's service time. This morning, McClellan still couldn't even say whether or when Bush served in Texas or Alabama.
It would be nice if Bush would waive his privacy rights and release any official record with his name on it. But I have a less legalistic, more basic request: Could the President just tell us if he remembers where he was and what he was doing to earn government checks after he stopped flying?
Reminder: Any job that carries a "Top Secret" clearance requires you to account for every month of your life.
McClellan's point is that "these records clearly document the President fulfilling his duties." Well, it's good to know that Bush wasn't a deserter -- a remarkably low standard for a future commander-in-chief, wouldn't you say? -- but the debate on this issue is shifting. Rather than being satisfied with technical proof that Bush wasn't AWOL, people are beginning to wonder why the administration doesn't seem to be able to offer any affirmative answers to questions about Bush's service time. This morning, McClellan still couldn't even say whether or when Bush served in Texas or Alabama.
It would be nice if Bush would waive his privacy rights and release any official record with his name on it. But I have a less legalistic, more basic request: Could the President just tell us if he remembers where he was and what he was doing to earn government checks after he stopped flying?
Reminder: Any job that carries a "Top Secret" clearance requires you to account for every month of your life.
The "W Document" Is Real! Now What?
Holy smokes. During the time it took me to put together a full account of George Magazine's autumn 2000 investigation into the military record of George W. Bush, which is posted below, a full version of a key piece of evidence has surfaced.
Kevin Drum of Calpundit has now posted a clean copy of the 1972-73 statement of points Bush earned in the National Guard. In a torn version that George and others had found earlier, this page had been known as the "W Document," and had led to all kinds of speculation.
After stitching together other evidence in Bush's files, we at George concluded that the "W Document" was real, and that two pages listing points of service that Bush earned correspond in an interlocking fashion to two documents ordering him to attend active duty training. (That's what the second half of the long post below is all about.) I think reasonable people would now have to agree: the "W Document" is genuine.
So first of all, congratulations and thanks to Kevin Drum.
But the full 1972-73 statement of points raises some new issues. Here are three that came to my mind right away, and that are now bubbling across the web:
1. The first date on the page ends with October 29, not November 29, as "W Document"-watchers had been expecting. One reason we had projected a date in November was because it fit – it would have been before the January 10 date that was deducible from the torn records, and it would have been around Thanksgiving, when we could assume Bush returned to Texas if he hadn't before. But there was a bigger reason: because the Bush campaign told us so in 2000.
Check it out: On Nov. 3, 2000, the New York Times' Jo Thomas wrote that Dan Bartlett "pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."
Again, you can figure out the January date if you look closely enough, and Bush was ordered to report in April and May, so those were no-brainers. But it turns out Bartlett was wrong about November 29 – and about December 14, too. The clean version of the "W Document" shows Bush gaining points for days ending on November 14.
This tells me that Bartlett either had some reason for intentionally confounding the dates, or, more probably, he was making his best guess about what the records showed, just like the rest of us. Given what the full page actually shows, it seems likely that Bartlett was working off the same torn "W Document" that we were and didn't have much information from Bush to supplement it – and he was the guy in charge of explaining to the press what Bush's files meant.
I think what we're seeing is that Bush hasn't made a full account of his 1972-73 time in Alabama and Texas to his own staff, either because he doesn't think he needs to or because he can't. Either way, this means it is more important than ever to put key questions directly to the President.
2. It's not clear why the statements of points Bush earned during his last two years of Guard membership are computer printouts on pages separate from his master personnel summary. Drum, abetted by former Guard pilot Robert Rogers, smells something fishy:
"[I]t is an ARF document … ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October … To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 … but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972."
Well, maybe. But there are two big problems with this theory. One is that the chronological record of Bush's service shows him being transferred to Air Reserve headquarters in Denver on October 1, 1973 – a paper transfer corresponding with his enrollment at Harvard Business School – not September 1972. The other is that Bush received two orders, on April 23 and May 1, 1973, ordering him to report to annual active duty training at Ellington Air Force Base in Texas. Even if such orders were sent to someone who had been permanently grounded, fulfilling them seems like it would constitute "actual" duty.
And I am not so sure it's as big deal as Drum thinks that Bush's 1972-73 and 1973-74 pages are titled "ARF Statement of Points Earned." After all, the master personnel document that Drum cites for Bush's record prior to May 1972 is itself called as "Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary." The Air Reserve Forces tracked membership points for Guard members. It might be that Bush's retirement credit summary, his 1972-73 statement and his 1973-74 statement ought to be read consecutively, as they appear in the FOIA release of his records – that taken together, they form a full record of the points he earned. Maybe the document type shifted when Bush put in days in a state other than Texas, or when he stopped flying, or when the Air Reserve switched forms. These would all be simple explanations, and the simplest explanations are usually the likeliest.
Of course, we can speculate all we want – and people across the Internet are already convinced that Bush's assignment to Denver was disciplinary in nature. We won't know the truth until the President explains where and how he reported for duty, and opens his service files and pay records to back up his assertions.
Of the 10 queries in my original post on this topic, Question #5 was: Was there a Flight Inquiry Board after George W. Bush's suspension, and if so, what did it find? Was Bush disciplined for missing flights or his physical, and if so, how?
And Question #9 was: How did Bush "work out" that early discharge, exactly? Were the terms of that discharge related to his attachment to Air Reserves headquarters in Denver until late 1974?
These seem more pertinent than ever.
3. Drum says the untorn version of the "W Document" was "delivered to Bob Fertik in response to a FOIA request in late 2000." Pardon me for asking, but exactly when when did Fertik obtain the full page?
I'm wondering about this because on October 15, 2000, Fertik published a piece on Democrats.com with the screaming headline "George Magazine is Wrong!" In it, he referred to our treatment of the 1972-73 statement of points this way:
"This 'torn and undated' document … is the cornerstone of their story. It therefore warrants close scrutiny. On the face of it, there is nothing to connect this document with George W. Bush, because his name appears nowhere, and the place where his name should be is torn … In the final analysis, this 'document' is bizarre - and not credible evidence that George W. Bush reported for duty during this period … [W]e dispute the authenticity of this 'document.'"
On January 24 of this year, Fertik updated his piece to include a working link to our original George story – but left all of these (and other) references to the "W Document" intact. That's very curious, given that he was Drum's source for the untorn version of the page.
I would hope that we can get off the question of the authenticity of the 1972-73 statement of points, get off the AWOL question and move toward asking what Bush was actually doing while he was in the Guard. Of course, I also hoped that in the fall of 2000, to no avail. But there's a huge amount of investigative energy out there, and public demand for information. Let's keep pursuing – and pushing the major media to ask – the right questions, not ones that are easily dismissible by Bush spokesmen.
Kevin Drum of Calpundit has now posted a clean copy of the 1972-73 statement of points Bush earned in the National Guard. In a torn version that George and others had found earlier, this page had been known as the "W Document," and had led to all kinds of speculation.
After stitching together other evidence in Bush's files, we at George concluded that the "W Document" was real, and that two pages listing points of service that Bush earned correspond in an interlocking fashion to two documents ordering him to attend active duty training. (That's what the second half of the long post below is all about.) I think reasonable people would now have to agree: the "W Document" is genuine.
So first of all, congratulations and thanks to Kevin Drum.
But the full 1972-73 statement of points raises some new issues. Here are three that came to my mind right away, and that are now bubbling across the web:
1. The first date on the page ends with October 29, not November 29, as "W Document"-watchers had been expecting. One reason we had projected a date in November was because it fit – it would have been before the January 10 date that was deducible from the torn records, and it would have been around Thanksgiving, when we could assume Bush returned to Texas if he hadn't before. But there was a bigger reason: because the Bush campaign told us so in 2000.
Check it out: On Nov. 3, 2000, the New York Times' Jo Thomas wrote that Dan Bartlett "pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."
Again, you can figure out the January date if you look closely enough, and Bush was ordered to report in April and May, so those were no-brainers. But it turns out Bartlett was wrong about November 29 – and about December 14, too. The clean version of the "W Document" shows Bush gaining points for days ending on November 14.
This tells me that Bartlett either had some reason for intentionally confounding the dates, or, more probably, he was making his best guess about what the records showed, just like the rest of us. Given what the full page actually shows, it seems likely that Bartlett was working off the same torn "W Document" that we were and didn't have much information from Bush to supplement it – and he was the guy in charge of explaining to the press what Bush's files meant.
I think what we're seeing is that Bush hasn't made a full account of his 1972-73 time in Alabama and Texas to his own staff, either because he doesn't think he needs to or because he can't. Either way, this means it is more important than ever to put key questions directly to the President.
2. It's not clear why the statements of points Bush earned during his last two years of Guard membership are computer printouts on pages separate from his master personnel summary. Drum, abetted by former Guard pilot Robert Rogers, smells something fishy:
"[I]t is an ARF document … ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October … To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 … but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972."
Well, maybe. But there are two big problems with this theory. One is that the chronological record of Bush's service shows him being transferred to Air Reserve headquarters in Denver on October 1, 1973 – a paper transfer corresponding with his enrollment at Harvard Business School – not September 1972. The other is that Bush received two orders, on April 23 and May 1, 1973, ordering him to report to annual active duty training at Ellington Air Force Base in Texas. Even if such orders were sent to someone who had been permanently grounded, fulfilling them seems like it would constitute "actual" duty.
And I am not so sure it's as big deal as Drum thinks that Bush's 1972-73 and 1973-74 pages are titled "ARF Statement of Points Earned." After all, the master personnel document that Drum cites for Bush's record prior to May 1972 is itself called as "Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary." The Air Reserve Forces tracked membership points for Guard members. It might be that Bush's retirement credit summary, his 1972-73 statement and his 1973-74 statement ought to be read consecutively, as they appear in the FOIA release of his records – that taken together, they form a full record of the points he earned. Maybe the document type shifted when Bush put in days in a state other than Texas, or when he stopped flying, or when the Air Reserve switched forms. These would all be simple explanations, and the simplest explanations are usually the likeliest.
Of course, we can speculate all we want – and people across the Internet are already convinced that Bush's assignment to Denver was disciplinary in nature. We won't know the truth until the President explains where and how he reported for duty, and opens his service files and pay records to back up his assertions.
Of the 10 queries in my original post on this topic, Question #5 was: Was there a Flight Inquiry Board after George W. Bush's suspension, and if so, what did it find? Was Bush disciplined for missing flights or his physical, and if so, how?
And Question #9 was: How did Bush "work out" that early discharge, exactly? Were the terms of that discharge related to his attachment to Air Reserves headquarters in Denver until late 1974?
These seem more pertinent than ever.
3. Drum says the untorn version of the "W Document" was "delivered to Bob Fertik in response to a FOIA request in late 2000." Pardon me for asking, but exactly when when did Fertik obtain the full page?
I'm wondering about this because on October 15, 2000, Fertik published a piece on Democrats.com with the screaming headline "George Magazine is Wrong!" In it, he referred to our treatment of the 1972-73 statement of points this way:
"This 'torn and undated' document … is the cornerstone of their story. It therefore warrants close scrutiny. On the face of it, there is nothing to connect this document with George W. Bush, because his name appears nowhere, and the place where his name should be is torn … In the final analysis, this 'document' is bizarre - and not credible evidence that George W. Bush reported for duty during this period … [W]e dispute the authenticity of this 'document.'"
On January 24 of this year, Fertik updated his piece to include a working link to our original George story – but left all of these (and other) references to the "W Document" intact. That's very curious, given that he was Drum's source for the untorn version of the page.
I would hope that we can get off the question of the authenticity of the 1972-73 statement of points, get off the AWOL question and move toward asking what Bush was actually doing while he was in the Guard. Of course, I also hoped that in the fall of 2000, to no avail. But there's a huge amount of investigative energy out there, and public demand for information. Let's keep pursuing – and pushing the major media to ask – the right questions, not ones that are easily dismissible by Bush spokesmen.
10 Questions Beyond AWOL
In September and October 2000, when I was the senior writer for politics at George Magazine, we investigated George W. Bush's military record. We generated some significant results, including the first explanation of what some people are now calling the "W Document," and to get our findings out as quickly as possible, we posted them online. Unfortunately, George went out of business in January 2001, and its parent company, Hachette Filipacchi Media, has kept its archives closed. Georgemag.com went dark shortly afterward, and, even with tools such as the Wayback Machine , I haven't been able to conjure the ghosts of the documents we scanned onto the site to support our piece.
But in addition to our story, which is still floating around the web, I do have the series of online responses we published to the avalanche of questions we got, and I have my original notes. And I thought this would be a good moment to re-introduce our research. I think putting it back online can settle some arguments, bring some evidence to the table that has been ignored since 2000 and point us toward some relevant questions that remain very open. (And, for what it's worth, re-establish that the late George put together a chronology of Bush's record using all the available evidence before the New York Times and Washington Post got around to their stories in November 2000.)
Our original story, which Karthik Thyagarajan and I co-authored and which was published on October 13, 2000, reported that "Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge." I stand by that conclusion. And I believed that once we presented the evidence that Bush had met the technical requirements for an honorable discharge, the focus of media and political inquiry would shift to what he did during the time he served in the National Guard. The piece was called "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either"; I thought the next round of stories would be about what "not heroic" actually meant.
Instead, the anti-Bush left kept arguing about whether or not Bush actually had gone AWOL, and the Bush campaign ran out the clock. Al Gore made nothing of Bush's military record, major newspapers didn't pick up the thread until just days before the election and TV news ignored the story.
Bush's political advisers erred in thinking they buried this issue forever. But in order for this go-around to be more productive than the last time – either politically for Democrats or just in terms of getting the truth out – the right questions have to be put to the administration. To see what they are, let's take a run through the account that we assembled at George.
(I apologize in advance for the book-length size of the rest of this post, and thank other online bloggers and researchers for keeping alive a virtual library of Bush documents, which I have relied on below.)
The beginning of this tale is familiar by now, but bears repeating. George W. Bush applied to join the Texas Air National Guard when he was a senior at Yale, around the time of the Tet Offensive in 1968, when an estimated 100,000 Americans were on waiting lists to join Guard units across the country. He got in two weeks before he graduated.
Ben Barnes, former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated in September 1999 that in late 1967 or early 1968, he asked a senior official in the Texas Air National Guard to help Bush get into the Guard as a pilot. Barnes said he did so at the behest of Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman and friend of former President George H. W. Bush, then a Texas congressman. Former President Bush has denied pulling strings at the Guard on behalf of his son, but given Barnes' admission, that is not a complete explanation of events. Adger and Barnes are deceased.
So here's question #1 for President Bush: Did he or his father ever give an okay for a family member or friend to help him get into the Guard? Did either of them ever know about such help?
The younger Bush fulfilled two years of active duty and completed pilot training in June 1970. During that time and in the two years that followed, Bush flew the F-102, an interceptor jet equipped with missiles that could shoot down enemy planes. His commanding officers and peers regarded Bush as a competent pilot and enthusiastic Guard member. In March 1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release trumpeting his performance: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained by the 147th [Fighter Group] and to solo in the F-102 … Lt. Bush said his father was just as excited and enthusiastic about his solo flight as he was."
But in the spring of 1972, National Guard records show a sudden dropoff in Bush's military activity. Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in Alabama. Documents from Ellington Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May." Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that required minimal duty and offered no pay. Although that unit’s commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31 higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
Bush moved to Alabama anyway. There has been considerable confusion about his whereabouts during the second half of 1972 and the first half of 1973, but at George, we obtained records showing that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. (I will post these as soon as I can get my hands on our old files.)
Now, this doesn't mean Bush was AWOL, or a deserter, or that he failed to report when ordered. Even in wartime, the National Guard tries to accommodate members that have civilian jobs. But it does mean that Bush separated himself from his Texas unit without having a replacement location to serve. And neither Bush’s annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard’s overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.
So here's question #2 for President Bush: When he packed up and left Texas for Alabama even though he still owed the Guard service in 1972, what was he thinking? Did he care that his transfer request had been rejected? Did he assume he could get another?
On or around his 27th birthday, July 6, 1972, Bush did not take his required annual medical exam at his Texas unit. As a consequence, he was suspended from flying military jets. In 2000, Bush aide Dan Bartlett told George: "You take that exam because you are flying, and he was not flying. The paperwork uses the phrase ‘suspended from flying,’ but he had no intention of flying at that time … The Air Force had begun phasing out the F-102 at that time, and he was not extending his duty, he was planning to go to graduate school. It did not make sense for [Bush] or the Guard to extend his training. He was in a non-flying capacity, warranting no reason for him to take a medical exam."
But there's no such thing as an insignificant suspension – the U.S. government spends considerable time and money training pilots, who are supposed to fly whatever their "intention." Moreover, Bush didn't start business school until the fall of 1973. Yet after April 1972, he never flew for the National Guard.
Question #3: When and how did President Bush decide to permanently stop flying for the Guard?
Question #4: How was he able to communicate this decision to his superiors in a way that they never asked him to re-train, or to keep flying F-102s until he fulfilled all his service obligations?
Some media reports speculated that Bush took and failed his physical, or that he was grounded as a result of substance abuse, and Bush’s vagueness on the subject of his past drug use has only abetted such rumors. Bush’s commanding officer in Texas, however, denied the charges to George. Bobby Hodges, now a retired Major General, said: "His flying status was suspended because he didn’t take the exam, not because he couldn’t pass."
Since our story appeared, other reports have indicated that the suspension of a pilot is usually followed by a Flight Inquiry Board to review the reason and set any punishment. So that's Question #5: Was there a Flight Inquiry Board after George W. Bush's suspension, and if so, what did it find? Was Bush disciplined for missing flights or his physical, and if so, how?
On September 5, 1972, Bush wrote to then-Col. Jerry Killian at his original unit in Texas, requesting permission to serve with the 187th Tactical Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the months of September, October, and November," Bush wrote.
This time his request was approved: 10 days later, the Alabama Guard ordered Bush to report to then-Lt. Col. William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air Force Base. The memo noted that unit training assembly would be held on October 7-8 and November 4-5. (Scroll down to the last document at this link. Note that this is not the same as ordering Bush to report on those dates; such an order would contain a direct phrase, such as "Following named officer are ordered to attend annual active duty training at the Air National Guard training site Ellington AFB, Texas for the period indicated" – which other Bush documents do have.) It also stated: "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group," since the 187th did not fly F-102s.
Bush was a cipher in Alabama. In 2000, the GOP tried to find people who served there with him to try to confirm that he spent time with the Alabama Air National Guard – and nobody stepped forward. And neither Turnipseed, Bush’s commanding officer, nor Kenneth Lott, then chief personnel officer of the 187th, could remember Bush serving with their unit when George interviewed them. "I don’t think he showed up," Turnipseed said.
Bush maintains he did serve in Alabama. On Sunday, he told Tim Russert: "You don't just, you know, say I did something without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama." In 2000, Bartlett told George: "Gov. Bush specifically remembers pulling duty in Montgomery and respectfully disagrees with the Colonel," says Bartlett. "There’s no question it wasn’t memorable, because he wasn’t flying. He was not associated with that unit, and he wasn't in a position to develop relationships with a lot of the folks in that unit."
In July 2000, the Decatur Daily reported that two former Blount campaign workers recalled Bush serving in the Alabama Air National Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state," stated Emily Martin, a former Alabama resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state. "Although I never actually drove him to Guard duty, he told me that he went and there is no reason for me to believe that he did not go."
Question #6: Can Bush provide any details at all about the time he spent in Alabama – where he lived, who he hung out with, what he did? How about just one person whom he served with in the Alabama Guard?
After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and subsequently began working at P.U.L.L., a community service center for disadvantaged youths. This period is controversial, too, because even though Bush’s original unit had been placed on alert duty in October 1972, his superiors in Texas lost track of his whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, when Lt. Col. William Harris, Jr., Bush’s squadron leader in the 147th, tried to fill out his officer evaluation report, heincorrectly assumed that Bush had been reporting for duty in Alabama all along. Harris wrote that Bush "has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." He also stated: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the preceding year.
The key thing about this report is that since Harris was wrong about the former, we have no way of knowing whether or not he was right about the latter. Bush’s evaluation by itself neither demonstrates nor disproves anything about his service between the time he stopped flying and May 1973. All we know is that Bush fell off his superiors’ radar screens after the spring of 1972 to such an extent that they didn’t know where he was. Of Bush’s return to Texas, base commander Hodges told George: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and made up his days."
At this point, we have to take a long detour to examine the specific question of whether or not Bush accumulated enough service time to merit an honorable discharge. Specifically, we have to look at four pieces of evidence, one of which is the notorious "W Document."
The "W Document" is a torn, undated page with only two typed letters visible beyond its title, "ARF Statement of Points Earned," which indicates that it is an Air Reserve Forces record of the points that every Guardsman must accumulate to maintain his standing. Taken by itself, it sure doesn't seem to say much.
But it doesn't stand by itself. First, it was part of Bush's military records (not an insert, as some reports have claimed). At George, we got the first copy we saw from a set of Bush's records released under the Freedom of Information Act. It was the 99th page in the set, and it filled a gap between statements of points Bush earned in previous years and the points he earned in 1973-74. So it seems on its face to be statement of points Bush earned in 1972-73. Start on that basis, and you will see that its "W" is right where you would expect it to be if the name "Bush George W" were printed at the top, as it is for the '73-'74 page.
Further, the fourth date on the "W Document" is the 10th day of a month that ends in "N." Given the three-letter codes used on ARF statements, that month could be "JAN" or "JUN." However, Bush's service year started when he was sworn into the Guard, which means it ran from May to May. So the first date listed is the 29th of a month that is May or later, the second is the 14th of at least one month following, and the third is the 6th of at least one month after that – which means the "N" month cannot be June, and therefore must be January.
With that chronology in mind, we can turn to the other pages related to the "W" page. First, on April 23, 1973, Bush was ordered to report to annual active duty training the following month; the dates listed are May 1-3 and May 8-10. Since the fourth date on the "W" document is from January, the sixth and seventh could be from May, and would then correspond to the dates listed in Bush's orders.
Second, on May 1, 1973, Bush was ordered to report for more active duty training, on May 22-24, May 29-31 and June 5-7. The first of these matches the ninth (and final) date on the "W Document," and the other two fit with the first two dates listed on Bush's 1973-74 statement of points earned.
In short, there are two orders to attend training that contain dates that correspond in an overlapping fashion to two documents listing points of service that Bush earned. At George, we concluded that was enough to take those lists seriously. That's why, after piecing together this puzzle, we reported in October 2000 that Bush racked up enough points – barely – in his final two service years to maintain his standing as a Guardsman.
We weren't exactly lauded for our detective work. Many of the people paying close attention to this subject three and a half years ago were convinced that Bush had been AWOL, and refused to accept the legitimacy of any analysis that concluded otherwise, though we had found gaping holes in Bush's record beyond the technical question of how many Guard points he managed to accumulate.
Also, we goofed – not on any factual matter, as far as I know, but on how we introduced the "W Document" to the public. In gathering information about Bush's record, the Guard and service points, one of the people I interviewed (among many others) was retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, Jr., who retired in 1997 as director of military personnel and data systems for the Texas Air National Guard. Earlier in 2000, when the Bush campaign itself had asked the Texas Adjutant General’s office for assistance in deciphering its candidate's military records, the request was referred to Lloyd. He had access to Bush's records, and it was he who first figured out that the "W Document" was Bush's statement of points for 1972-73. In offering his explanation of the document to me, he faxxed me a copy. That page was much more legible than the one we had in our copy of Bush's records, which looked more like this. So I gave it to our website to post. I didn't even give a thought to the fact that Lloyd had written some notes on the page, because nothing he had done changed the substance of its text. I just wanted people to be able to make out the letters and numbers on the document, especially the "N" in "JAN." So I am responsible for putting online the version of the "W Document" with Lloyd's handwritten notes, and my motive was simple: legibility.
The pro-AWOL crowd immediately bombarded George with e-mails accusing us of using "tattered," "doctored" and "embellished" documents – and, after I explained what happened in a supplementary online post, of being "deliberately misdirected" by Lloyd. It was not a pleasant way to spend the week leading up to an exciting presidential election.
We offered further evidence and response to our readers in online posts on October 20, October 24 and November 3, 2000, but probably very few of the people interested in this subject today read those exchanges, and they are no longer available. To set the record straight on a few of the points they contained:
> Lloyd neither worked for nor received payment from the Bush campaign.
> When Lloyd examined Bush’s records – in 2000, not 1998, as some reports claimed – he found the "W Document." He did not add that page to the set of documents. And it's not just on Lloyd's say-so that we know this. George Lardner, a reporter for the Washington Post who co-authored a major series on Bush back in July 1999, confirmed to me that the 1972-73 statement of points was included in the set of Bush’s military records he obtained for his research.
> The crucial point, of course, is that Lloyd's writing does not change any of the numbers on the "W Document," nor their sum: 41 points for Bush that year from active and inactive duty. (Bush also accumulated 15 "gratuitous" points, as all members of the Guard do automatically.)
> Lloyd also told George that since he had permission to examine the documents without privacy redactions, he saw Bush’s Social Security number on the 1972-73 Statement of Points Earned. "I will take a lie detector test. I will swear on a Bible," he said.
Even if the "W Document" and its companions indicate that Bush made up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972, they don't say where or how. Which means Question #7 is: On which exact dates and in what way did Bush make up days in Alabama, and which in Texas?
While Bush still wasn't flying, his records indicate he crammed in 10 Guard sessions from the end of May to the end of July 1973, piling up enough points, when added to his gratuitous points for the year, to get him to the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974.
Question #8: After so many months of attendance so desultory that his superiors don't remember him showing up, why did Bush develop such a sudden interest in the Guard in the spring of 1973?
On October 1, 1973, Bush received an early honorable discharge so that he could attend Harvard Business School. He was credited with five years, four months and five days of service toward his six-year service obligation. It's not clear why, but Bush's records show him serving with Air Reserves headquarters in Denver, a paper unit, from October 1 1973 through November 21 1974.
On Sunday, Russert asked the President: "You did, were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Is there a reason?" (Which, by the way, was an extraordinarily weak question. Of all the things to press Bush on, and with so many facts needing clarification, why ask a question everyone knew the answer to?)
Bush replied: "Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School, and worked it out with the military."
Question #9: Exactly how did Bush "work out" that early discharge? Were the terms of Bush's discharge related to his attachment to Air Reserves headquarters in Denver until late 1974?
George reckoned back in 2000 that valid questions remained about Bush's service while acknowledging that his days served met minimum requirements. Others who looked at the totality of the Bush record agreed. For instance, retired Lt. Robert Rogers, author of a Democrats.com story on Bush’s military record, told me: "I have no reason to consider either of the two years of points [1972-73 and 1973-74] illegitimate. What concerns me is that Bush signed up for two years of training and four years of gung-ho, elite, champagne unit, runway standby alert flying and then only flew for two years."
And on October 31, 2000, Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson, who had broken the first major ground on this subject five months earlier, wrote: "Major Thomas A. Deall, a spokesman for the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, said last week that officials there now believe that after looking at Bush's records, he met minimum drill requirements before his discharge." Robinson then wrote: "The result is that Bush's discharge was ‘honorable.’ But, for understandable reasons, it is not a period of Bush's life he has called attention to."
Keep assailing Bush for being AWOL when the numbers don't support the charge, and the President will simply intone a safe answer over and over again, as he did on Meet the Press: "I had an honorable discharge … I did report, otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged."
Instead, it's important to find out what kind of service this man who now proudly declares himself a "war president" gave his country, to learn where he was and what he was doing when hundreds of thousands of others who answered – or were forced to answer – the call of military service were sent into combat.
One last quote from Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: But you authorize release of everything to settle this?
PRES. BUSH: Yeah. Absolutely. I did so in 2000, by the way.
Actually, he didn't. So Question #10 is: Can we see it all now, please?
But in addition to our story, which is still floating around the web, I do have the series of online responses we published to the avalanche of questions we got, and I have my original notes. And I thought this would be a good moment to re-introduce our research. I think putting it back online can settle some arguments, bring some evidence to the table that has been ignored since 2000 and point us toward some relevant questions that remain very open. (And, for what it's worth, re-establish that the late George put together a chronology of Bush's record using all the available evidence before the New York Times and Washington Post got around to their stories in November 2000.)
Our original story, which Karthik Thyagarajan and I co-authored and which was published on October 13, 2000, reported that "Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge." I stand by that conclusion. And I believed that once we presented the evidence that Bush had met the technical requirements for an honorable discharge, the focus of media and political inquiry would shift to what he did during the time he served in the National Guard. The piece was called "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either"; I thought the next round of stories would be about what "not heroic" actually meant.
Instead, the anti-Bush left kept arguing about whether or not Bush actually had gone AWOL, and the Bush campaign ran out the clock. Al Gore made nothing of Bush's military record, major newspapers didn't pick up the thread until just days before the election and TV news ignored the story.
Bush's political advisers erred in thinking they buried this issue forever. But in order for this go-around to be more productive than the last time – either politically for Democrats or just in terms of getting the truth out – the right questions have to be put to the administration. To see what they are, let's take a run through the account that we assembled at George.
(I apologize in advance for the book-length size of the rest of this post, and thank other online bloggers and researchers for keeping alive a virtual library of Bush documents, which I have relied on below.)
The beginning of this tale is familiar by now, but bears repeating. George W. Bush applied to join the Texas Air National Guard when he was a senior at Yale, around the time of the Tet Offensive in 1968, when an estimated 100,000 Americans were on waiting lists to join Guard units across the country. He got in two weeks before he graduated.
Ben Barnes, former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated in September 1999 that in late 1967 or early 1968, he asked a senior official in the Texas Air National Guard to help Bush get into the Guard as a pilot. Barnes said he did so at the behest of Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman and friend of former President George H. W. Bush, then a Texas congressman. Former President Bush has denied pulling strings at the Guard on behalf of his son, but given Barnes' admission, that is not a complete explanation of events. Adger and Barnes are deceased.
So here's question #1 for President Bush: Did he or his father ever give an okay for a family member or friend to help him get into the Guard? Did either of them ever know about such help?
The younger Bush fulfilled two years of active duty and completed pilot training in June 1970. During that time and in the two years that followed, Bush flew the F-102, an interceptor jet equipped with missiles that could shoot down enemy planes. His commanding officers and peers regarded Bush as a competent pilot and enthusiastic Guard member. In March 1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release trumpeting his performance: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained by the 147th [Fighter Group] and to solo in the F-102 … Lt. Bush said his father was just as excited and enthusiastic about his solo flight as he was."
But in the spring of 1972, National Guard records show a sudden dropoff in Bush's military activity. Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in Alabama. Documents from Ellington Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May." Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that required minimal duty and offered no pay. Although that unit’s commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31 higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
Bush moved to Alabama anyway. There has been considerable confusion about his whereabouts during the second half of 1972 and the first half of 1973, but at George, we obtained records showing that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. (I will post these as soon as I can get my hands on our old files.)
Now, this doesn't mean Bush was AWOL, or a deserter, or that he failed to report when ordered. Even in wartime, the National Guard tries to accommodate members that have civilian jobs. But it does mean that Bush separated himself from his Texas unit without having a replacement location to serve. And neither Bush’s annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard’s overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.
So here's question #2 for President Bush: When he packed up and left Texas for Alabama even though he still owed the Guard service in 1972, what was he thinking? Did he care that his transfer request had been rejected? Did he assume he could get another?
On or around his 27th birthday, July 6, 1972, Bush did not take his required annual medical exam at his Texas unit. As a consequence, he was suspended from flying military jets. In 2000, Bush aide Dan Bartlett told George: "You take that exam because you are flying, and he was not flying. The paperwork uses the phrase ‘suspended from flying,’ but he had no intention of flying at that time … The Air Force had begun phasing out the F-102 at that time, and he was not extending his duty, he was planning to go to graduate school. It did not make sense for [Bush] or the Guard to extend his training. He was in a non-flying capacity, warranting no reason for him to take a medical exam."
But there's no such thing as an insignificant suspension – the U.S. government spends considerable time and money training pilots, who are supposed to fly whatever their "intention." Moreover, Bush didn't start business school until the fall of 1973. Yet after April 1972, he never flew for the National Guard.
Question #3: When and how did President Bush decide to permanently stop flying for the Guard?
Question #4: How was he able to communicate this decision to his superiors in a way that they never asked him to re-train, or to keep flying F-102s until he fulfilled all his service obligations?
Some media reports speculated that Bush took and failed his physical, or that he was grounded as a result of substance abuse, and Bush’s vagueness on the subject of his past drug use has only abetted such rumors. Bush’s commanding officer in Texas, however, denied the charges to George. Bobby Hodges, now a retired Major General, said: "His flying status was suspended because he didn’t take the exam, not because he couldn’t pass."
Since our story appeared, other reports have indicated that the suspension of a pilot is usually followed by a Flight Inquiry Board to review the reason and set any punishment. So that's Question #5: Was there a Flight Inquiry Board after George W. Bush's suspension, and if so, what did it find? Was Bush disciplined for missing flights or his physical, and if so, how?
On September 5, 1972, Bush wrote to then-Col. Jerry Killian at his original unit in Texas, requesting permission to serve with the 187th Tactical Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the months of September, October, and November," Bush wrote.
This time his request was approved: 10 days later, the Alabama Guard ordered Bush to report to then-Lt. Col. William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air Force Base. The memo noted that unit training assembly would be held on October 7-8 and November 4-5. (Scroll down to the last document at this link. Note that this is not the same as ordering Bush to report on those dates; such an order would contain a direct phrase, such as "Following named officer are ordered to attend annual active duty training at the Air National Guard training site Ellington AFB, Texas for the period indicated" – which other Bush documents do have.) It also stated: "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group," since the 187th did not fly F-102s.
Bush was a cipher in Alabama. In 2000, the GOP tried to find people who served there with him to try to confirm that he spent time with the Alabama Air National Guard – and nobody stepped forward. And neither Turnipseed, Bush’s commanding officer, nor Kenneth Lott, then chief personnel officer of the 187th, could remember Bush serving with their unit when George interviewed them. "I don’t think he showed up," Turnipseed said.
Bush maintains he did serve in Alabama. On Sunday, he told Tim Russert: "You don't just, you know, say I did something without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama." In 2000, Bartlett told George: "Gov. Bush specifically remembers pulling duty in Montgomery and respectfully disagrees with the Colonel," says Bartlett. "There’s no question it wasn’t memorable, because he wasn’t flying. He was not associated with that unit, and he wasn't in a position to develop relationships with a lot of the folks in that unit."
In July 2000, the Decatur Daily reported that two former Blount campaign workers recalled Bush serving in the Alabama Air National Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state," stated Emily Martin, a former Alabama resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state. "Although I never actually drove him to Guard duty, he told me that he went and there is no reason for me to believe that he did not go."
Question #6: Can Bush provide any details at all about the time he spent in Alabama – where he lived, who he hung out with, what he did? How about just one person whom he served with in the Alabama Guard?
After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and subsequently began working at P.U.L.L., a community service center for disadvantaged youths. This period is controversial, too, because even though Bush’s original unit had been placed on alert duty in October 1972, his superiors in Texas lost track of his whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, when Lt. Col. William Harris, Jr., Bush’s squadron leader in the 147th, tried to fill out his officer evaluation report, heincorrectly assumed that Bush had been reporting for duty in Alabama all along. Harris wrote that Bush "has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." He also stated: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the preceding year.
The key thing about this report is that since Harris was wrong about the former, we have no way of knowing whether or not he was right about the latter. Bush’s evaluation by itself neither demonstrates nor disproves anything about his service between the time he stopped flying and May 1973. All we know is that Bush fell off his superiors’ radar screens after the spring of 1972 to such an extent that they didn’t know where he was. Of Bush’s return to Texas, base commander Hodges told George: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and made up his days."
At this point, we have to take a long detour to examine the specific question of whether or not Bush accumulated enough service time to merit an honorable discharge. Specifically, we have to look at four pieces of evidence, one of which is the notorious "W Document."
The "W Document" is a torn, undated page with only two typed letters visible beyond its title, "ARF Statement of Points Earned," which indicates that it is an Air Reserve Forces record of the points that every Guardsman must accumulate to maintain his standing. Taken by itself, it sure doesn't seem to say much.
But it doesn't stand by itself. First, it was part of Bush's military records (not an insert, as some reports have claimed). At George, we got the first copy we saw from a set of Bush's records released under the Freedom of Information Act. It was the 99th page in the set, and it filled a gap between statements of points Bush earned in previous years and the points he earned in 1973-74. So it seems on its face to be statement of points Bush earned in 1972-73. Start on that basis, and you will see that its "W" is right where you would expect it to be if the name "Bush George W" were printed at the top, as it is for the '73-'74 page.
Further, the fourth date on the "W Document" is the 10th day of a month that ends in "N." Given the three-letter codes used on ARF statements, that month could be "JAN" or "JUN." However, Bush's service year started when he was sworn into the Guard, which means it ran from May to May. So the first date listed is the 29th of a month that is May or later, the second is the 14th of at least one month following, and the third is the 6th of at least one month after that – which means the "N" month cannot be June, and therefore must be January.
With that chronology in mind, we can turn to the other pages related to the "W" page. First, on April 23, 1973, Bush was ordered to report to annual active duty training the following month; the dates listed are May 1-3 and May 8-10. Since the fourth date on the "W" document is from January, the sixth and seventh could be from May, and would then correspond to the dates listed in Bush's orders.
Second, on May 1, 1973, Bush was ordered to report for more active duty training, on May 22-24, May 29-31 and June 5-7. The first of these matches the ninth (and final) date on the "W Document," and the other two fit with the first two dates listed on Bush's 1973-74 statement of points earned.
In short, there are two orders to attend training that contain dates that correspond in an overlapping fashion to two documents listing points of service that Bush earned. At George, we concluded that was enough to take those lists seriously. That's why, after piecing together this puzzle, we reported in October 2000 that Bush racked up enough points – barely – in his final two service years to maintain his standing as a Guardsman.
We weren't exactly lauded for our detective work. Many of the people paying close attention to this subject three and a half years ago were convinced that Bush had been AWOL, and refused to accept the legitimacy of any analysis that concluded otherwise, though we had found gaping holes in Bush's record beyond the technical question of how many Guard points he managed to accumulate.
Also, we goofed – not on any factual matter, as far as I know, but on how we introduced the "W Document" to the public. In gathering information about Bush's record, the Guard and service points, one of the people I interviewed (among many others) was retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, Jr., who retired in 1997 as director of military personnel and data systems for the Texas Air National Guard. Earlier in 2000, when the Bush campaign itself had asked the Texas Adjutant General’s office for assistance in deciphering its candidate's military records, the request was referred to Lloyd. He had access to Bush's records, and it was he who first figured out that the "W Document" was Bush's statement of points for 1972-73. In offering his explanation of the document to me, he faxxed me a copy. That page was much more legible than the one we had in our copy of Bush's records, which looked more like this. So I gave it to our website to post. I didn't even give a thought to the fact that Lloyd had written some notes on the page, because nothing he had done changed the substance of its text. I just wanted people to be able to make out the letters and numbers on the document, especially the "N" in "JAN." So I am responsible for putting online the version of the "W Document" with Lloyd's handwritten notes, and my motive was simple: legibility.
The pro-AWOL crowd immediately bombarded George with e-mails accusing us of using "tattered," "doctored" and "embellished" documents – and, after I explained what happened in a supplementary online post, of being "deliberately misdirected" by Lloyd. It was not a pleasant way to spend the week leading up to an exciting presidential election.
We offered further evidence and response to our readers in online posts on October 20, October 24 and November 3, 2000, but probably very few of the people interested in this subject today read those exchanges, and they are no longer available. To set the record straight on a few of the points they contained:
> Lloyd neither worked for nor received payment from the Bush campaign.
> When Lloyd examined Bush’s records – in 2000, not 1998, as some reports claimed – he found the "W Document." He did not add that page to the set of documents. And it's not just on Lloyd's say-so that we know this. George Lardner, a reporter for the Washington Post who co-authored a major series on Bush back in July 1999, confirmed to me that the 1972-73 statement of points was included in the set of Bush’s military records he obtained for his research.
> The crucial point, of course, is that Lloyd's writing does not change any of the numbers on the "W Document," nor their sum: 41 points for Bush that year from active and inactive duty. (Bush also accumulated 15 "gratuitous" points, as all members of the Guard do automatically.)
> Lloyd also told George that since he had permission to examine the documents without privacy redactions, he saw Bush’s Social Security number on the 1972-73 Statement of Points Earned. "I will take a lie detector test. I will swear on a Bible," he said.
Even if the "W Document" and its companions indicate that Bush made up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972, they don't say where or how. Which means Question #7 is: On which exact dates and in what way did Bush make up days in Alabama, and which in Texas?
While Bush still wasn't flying, his records indicate he crammed in 10 Guard sessions from the end of May to the end of July 1973, piling up enough points, when added to his gratuitous points for the year, to get him to the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974.
Question #8: After so many months of attendance so desultory that his superiors don't remember him showing up, why did Bush develop such a sudden interest in the Guard in the spring of 1973?
On October 1, 1973, Bush received an early honorable discharge so that he could attend Harvard Business School. He was credited with five years, four months and five days of service toward his six-year service obligation. It's not clear why, but Bush's records show him serving with Air Reserves headquarters in Denver, a paper unit, from October 1 1973 through November 21 1974.
On Sunday, Russert asked the President: "You did, were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Is there a reason?" (Which, by the way, was an extraordinarily weak question. Of all the things to press Bush on, and with so many facts needing clarification, why ask a question everyone knew the answer to?)
Bush replied: "Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School, and worked it out with the military."
Question #9: Exactly how did Bush "work out" that early discharge? Were the terms of Bush's discharge related to his attachment to Air Reserves headquarters in Denver until late 1974?
George reckoned back in 2000 that valid questions remained about Bush's service while acknowledging that his days served met minimum requirements. Others who looked at the totality of the Bush record agreed. For instance, retired Lt. Robert Rogers, author of a Democrats.com story on Bush’s military record, told me: "I have no reason to consider either of the two years of points [1972-73 and 1973-74] illegitimate. What concerns me is that Bush signed up for two years of training and four years of gung-ho, elite, champagne unit, runway standby alert flying and then only flew for two years."
And on October 31, 2000, Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson, who had broken the first major ground on this subject five months earlier, wrote: "Major Thomas A. Deall, a spokesman for the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, said last week that officials there now believe that after looking at Bush's records, he met minimum drill requirements before his discharge." Robinson then wrote: "The result is that Bush's discharge was ‘honorable.’ But, for understandable reasons, it is not a period of Bush's life he has called attention to."
Keep assailing Bush for being AWOL when the numbers don't support the charge, and the President will simply intone a safe answer over and over again, as he did on Meet the Press: "I had an honorable discharge … I did report, otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged."
Instead, it's important to find out what kind of service this man who now proudly declares himself a "war president" gave his country, to learn where he was and what he was doing when hundreds of thousands of others who answered – or were forced to answer – the call of military service were sent into combat.
One last quote from Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: But you authorize release of everything to settle this?
PRES. BUSH: Yeah. Absolutely. I did so in 2000, by the way.
Actually, he didn't. So Question #10 is: Can we see it all now, please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
